ArticlePloS one2014
Combined PET imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging of intermediate and high-risk primary prostate carcinomas with simultaneous [18F] choline PET/MRI.
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 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- PET/MRI in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Pooled it
- Prospective head-to-head comparison ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Correlations Between MR Apparent Diffusion Coefficients and PET Standard Uptake Values in Simultaneous MR-PET Imaging of Prostate Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Molecular Imaging in Primary Staging of Prostate Cancer Patients: Current Aspects and Future Trends.Cancers · 2021Review
- The Role of [Cancers · 2021Article
- Therapy Response Assessment of Pediatric Tumors with Whole-Body Diffusion-weighted MRI and FDG PET/MRI.Radiology · 2020Article
- Intensity-modulated radiotherapy of prostate cancer with simultaneous integrated boost after molecular imaging with 18F-choline-PET/CT : Clinical results and quality of life.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018Article
- Metabolic Volumetric Parameters inContrast media & molecular imaging · 2018Article
- Multimodal Imaging in Focal Therapy Planning and Assessment in Primary Prostate Cancer.Clinical and translational imaging · 2017Article
- Current Status of Hybrid PET/MRI in Oncologic Imaging.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2016Review
- [Positron-emission tomography in urooncology].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2015Article
- Combined PET/MR: The Real Work Has Just Started. Summary Report of the Third International Workshop on PET/MR Imaging; February 17-21, 2014, Tübingen, Germany.Molecular imaging and biology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo characterize intermediate and high-risk prostate carcinomas with measurements of standardized uptake values (SUVs) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values by means of simultaneous [18F] choline PET/MRI. MATERIALS AND
methods35 patients with primary prostate cancer underwent simultaneous [18F] choline PET/MRI. From these, 21 patients with an intermediate and high risk constellation who were not under ongoing hormonal therapy were included. Altogether 32 tumor lesions with a focal uptake of [18F] choline could be identified. Average ADC values (ADCaver) minimum ADC values (ADCmin) as well as maximum and mean SUVs (SUVmax, SUVmean) of tumor lesions were assessed with volume-of-interest (VOI) and Region-of-interest (ROI) measurements. As a reference, also ADCaver, ADCmin and SUVmax and SUVmean of non-tumorous prostate tissue were measured. Statistical analysis comprised calculation of descriptive parameters and calculation of Pearson's product moment correlations between ADC values and SUVs of tumor lesions.
resultsMean ADCaver and ADCmin of tumor lesions were 0.94±0.22×10(-3) mm2/s and 0.65±0.21×10(-3) mm2/s, respectively. Mean SUVmax and SUVmean of tumor lesions were 6.3±2.3 and 2.6±0.8, respectively. These values were in each case significantly different from the reference values (p<0.001). There was no significant correlation between the measured SUVs and ADC values (SUVmax vs. ADCaver: R = -0.24, p = 0.179; SUVmax vs. ADCmin: R = -0.03, p = 0.877; SUVmean vs. ADCaver: R = -0.27, p = 0.136; SUVmean vs. ADCmin: R = -0.08, p = 0.679).
conclusionBoth SUVs and ADC values differ significantly between tumor lesions and healthy tissue. However, there is no significant correlation between these two parameters. This might be explained by the fact that SUVs and ADC values characterize different parts of tumor biology.
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.