Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24924545›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2014

Qualitative and quantitative performance of ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/MRI versus ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer.

S Partovi, A Kohan, J L Vercher-Conejero, C Rubbert, S Margevicius, M D Schluchter, C Gaeta, P Faulhaber, M R Robbin

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Role ofCancers · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Diagnostic Accuracy ofContrast media & molecular imaging · 2022
    Observational
  6. Article
  7. Attenuation correction for human PET/MRI studies.Physics in medicine and biology · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Comparison ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. FDG Whole-Body PET/MRI in Oncology: a Systematic Review.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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 · 2016
    Review
  19. PET/MRI and PET/CT: is there room for both at the top of the food chain?European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016
    Article
  20. Optimized imaging of the midface and orbits.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S PartoviFrom the Department of Radiology (S.P., A.K., J.L.V.-C., C.R., C.G., P.F., M.R.R.), University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio sasan.partovi@case.edu.
A KohanFrom the Department of Radiology (S.P., A.K., J.L.V.-C., C.R., C.G., P.F., M.R.R.), University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
J L Vercher-ConejeroFrom the Department of Radiology (S.P., A.K., J.L.V.-C., C.R., C.G., P.F., M.R.R.), University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
C RubbertFrom the Department of Radiology (S.P., A.K., J.L.V.-C., C.R., C.G., P.F., M.R.R.), University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
S MargeviciusDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology (S.M., M.D.S.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
M D SchluchterDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology (S.M., M.D.S.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
C GaetaFrom the Department of Radiology (S.P., A.K., J.L.V.-C., C.R., C.G., P.F., M.R.R.), University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
P FaulhaberFrom the Department of Radiology (S.P., A.K., J.L.V.-C., C.R., C.G., P.F., M.R.R.), University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
M R RobbinFrom the Department of Radiology (S.P., A.K., J.L.V.-C., C.R., C.G., P.F., M.R.R.), University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeMR imaging and PET/CT are integrated in the work-up of head and neck cancer patients. The hybrid imaging technology (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging combining morphological and functional information might be attractive in this patient population. The aim of the study was to compare whole-body (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging and (18)F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer, both qualitatively in terms of lymph node and distant metastases detection and quantitatively in terms of standardized uptake values measured in (18)F-FDG-avid lesions. MATERIALS AND

methodsFourteen patients with head and neck cancer underwent both whole-body PET/CT and PET/MR imaging after a single injection of (18)F-FDG. Two groups of readers counted the number of lesions on PET/CT and PET/MR imaging scans. A consensus reading was performed in those cases in which the groups disagreed. Quantitative standardized uptake value measurements were performed by placing spheric ROIs over the lesions in 3 different planes. Weighted and unweighted κ statistics, correlation analysis, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for statistical analysis.

resultsκ statistics for the number of head and neck lesion lesions counted (pooled across regions) revealed interreader agreement between groups 1 and 2 of 0.47 and 0.56, respectively. Intrareader agreement was 0.67 and 0.63. The consensus reading provided an intrareader agreement of 0.63. For the presence or absence of metastasis, interreader agreement was 0.85 and 0.70. The consensus reading provided an intrareader agreement of 0.72. The correlations between the maximum standardized uptake value in (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging and (18)F-FDG-PET/CT for primary tumors and lymph node and metastatic lesions were very high (Spearman r = 1.00, 0.93, and 0.92, respectively).

conclusionsIn patients with head and neck cancer, (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging and (18)F-FDG-PET/CT provide comparable results in the detection of lymph node and distant metastases. Standardized uptake values derived from (18)F-FDG-PET/MR imaging can be used reliably in this patient population.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18Head and Neck NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultimodal ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsTomography, X-Ray ComputedFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID24924545
PMCPMC7966242
OpenAlexW2081423055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.