ArticleBMC cancer2014
Diagnostic value of retrospective PET-MRI fusion in head-and-neck cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Performance of Whole-Body PET/MRI for Detecting Malignancies in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- MRI, PET/CT and PET/MRI Fusion in the Assessment of Lymph Node Metastases in Head and Neck Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Positron Emission Tomography-Magnetic Resonance Imaging, a New Hybrid Imaging Modality for Dentomaxillofacial Malignancies-A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Factors influencing the accuracy of multimodal image fusion for oral and maxillofacial tumors: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- Magnetic Fields and Cancer: Epidemiology, Cellular Biology, and Theranostics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy ofContrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Observational
- Head-to-Head Comparison of NeckCancers · 2021Article
- [Annals of nuclear medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- MRI T2-Weighted Imaging and Fat-Suppressed T2-Weighted Imaging Image Fusion Technology Improves Image Discriminability for the Evaluation of Anal Fistulas.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Article
- An Evaluation of the Benefits of Simultaneous Acquisition on PET/MR Coregistration in Head/Neck Imaging.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2017Article
- Potential Role of PET/MRI for Imaging Metastatic Lymph Nodes in Head and Neck Cancer.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2016Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the diagnostic value of retrospective PET-MRI fusion and to compare the results with side-by-side analysis and single modality use of PET and of MRI alone for locoregional tumour and nodal staging of head-and-neck cancer.
methodsThirty-three patients with head-and-neck cancer underwent preoperative contrast-enhanced MRI and PET/CT for staging. The diagnostic data of MRI, PET, side-by-side analysis of MRI and PET images and retrospective PET-MRI fusion were systematically analysed for tumour and lymph node staging using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The results were correlated to the histopathological evaluation.
resultsThe overall sensitivity/specificity for tumour staging for MRI, PET, side-by-side analysis and retrospective PET-MRI fusion was 79%/66%, 82%/100%, 86%/100% and 89%/100%, respectively. The overall sensitivity/specificity for nodal staging on a patient basis for MRI, PET, side-by-side analysis and PET-MRI fusion was 94%/64%, 94%/91%, 94%/82% and 94%/82%, respectively. MRI, PET, side-by-side analysis and retrospective image fusion were associated with correct diagnosis/over-staging/under-staging of N-staging in 70.4%/18.5%/11.1%, 81.5%/7.4%/11.1%, 81.5%/11.1%/7.4% and 81.5%/11.1%/7.4%, respectively.ROC analysis showed no significant differences in tumor detection between the investigated methods. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) for MRI, PET, side-by-side analysis and retrospective PET-MRI fusion were 0.667/0.667/0.702/0.708 (p > 0.05). The most reliable technique in detection of cervical lymph node metastases was PET imaging (AUC: 0.95), followed by side-by-side analysis and retrospective image fusion technique (AUC: 0.941), which however, was not significantly better then the MRI (AUC 0.935; p > 0.05).
conclusionsWe found a beneficial use of multimodal imaging, compared with MRI or PET imaging alone, particular in individual cases of recurrent tumour disease. Side-by-side analysis and retrospective image fusion analysis did not perform significantly differently.
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.