ArticlePloS one2014
Does the novel integrated PET/MRI offer the same diagnostic performance as PET/CT for oncological indications?
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- An international expert opinion statement on the utility of PET/MR for imaging of skeletal metastases.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- PET/MRI: a frontier in era of complementary hybrid imaging.European journal of hybrid imaging · 2018Review
- Reproducibility and repeatability of same-day two sequential FDG PET/MR and PET/CT.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2017Article
- FDG Whole-Body PET/MRI in Oncology: a Systematic Review.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Review
- Quantitative comparison of PET performance-Siemens Biograph mCT and mMR.EJNMMI physics · 2016Article
- Potential Role of PET/MRI for Imaging Metastatic Lymph Nodes in Head and Neck Cancer.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2016Review
- Evaluation of diagnostic performance of whole-body simultaneous PET/MRI in pediatric lymphoma.Pediatric radiology · 2016Article
- Concurrent functional and metabolic assessment of brain tumors using hybrid PET/MR imaging.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2016Article
- 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI Perform Equally Well in Cancer: Evidence from Studies on More Than 2,300 Patients.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2016Review
- A Clinical and Experimental Comparison of Time of Flight PET/MRI and PET/CT Systems.Molecular imaging and biology · 2015Article
- Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Oncology.Cancers · 2014Review
- Present and future role of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of gynecologic malignancies.Japanese journal of radiology · 2014Review
- [Imaging in smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. Past, present and future].Der Radiologe · 2014Article
- A Practical Approach to Optimize Scan Protocol for Simultaneous Whole-Body Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Cancer Staging.Indian journal of nuclear medicine : IJNM : the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared PET/MRI with PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and quantitative measurement to verify the feasibility of the novel integrated imaging modality for oncological applications. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsIn total, 285 patients referred to our PET/CT center for oncological indications voluntarily participated in this same-day PET/CT and PET/MRI comparative study. PET/CT images were acquired and reconstructed following routine protocols, and then PET/MRI was performed at a mean time interval of 28±11 min (range 15-45 min). PET/MRI covered the body trunk with a sequence combination of transverse T1WI 3D-volumetric interpolated breath-hold, T2WI turbo spin echo with fat saturation, diffusion-weighted imaging with double b values (50 and 800 s/mm2), and simultaneous PET acquisition over 45 min/5 bed positions. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was assessed by manually drawn regions of interest over fluorodeoxyglucose-positive lesions. Among 285 cases, 57 showed no abnormalities, and 368 lesions (278 malignant, 68 benign and 22 undetermined) were detected in 228 patients. When stand-alone modalities were evaluated, PET revealed 31 and 12 lesions missed by CT and MRI, respectively, and CT and MRI revealed 38 and 61 more lesions, respectively, than PET. Compared to CT, MRI detected 40 more lesions and missed 8. In the integrated mode, PET/CT correctly detected 6 lesions misdiagnosed by PET/MRI, but was false-negative in 30 cases that were detected by PET/MRI. The overall diagnosis did not differ between integrated PET/MRI and PET/CT. SUVmax for lesions were slightly higher from PET/MRI than PET/CT but correlated well (ρ = 0.85-0.91). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The novel integrated PET/MRI performed comparatively to PET/CT in lesion detection and quantitative measurements. PET from either scanner modality offered almost the same information despite differences in hardware. Further study is needed to explore features of integrated PET/MRI not addressed in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.