ArticlePloS one2015
Accuracy of [18F]FDG PET/MRI for the Detection of Liver Metastases.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of [European radiology · 2019Pooled it
- Diagnostic Performance of Whole-Body PET/MRI for Detecting Malignancies in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Clinical PET/MR.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026Review
- Article
- PET/MRI: pictorial review of hepatobiliary and pancreatic applications.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Comparative study of total-body PET and PET/MR in the diagnosis of liver metastases.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Patlak Slope versus Standardized Uptake Value Image Quality in an Oncologic PET/CT Population: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- PET/CT in assessment of colorectal liver metastases: a comprehensive review with emphasis onClinical & experimental metastasis · 2023Review
- International EANM-SNMMI-ISMRM consensus recommendation for PET/MRI in oncology.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- A lesson in humility: the added values of PET-MRI over PET-CT in detecting malignant hepatic lesions.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of MRI, CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- The Value ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Imaging evaluation of the liver in oncology patients: A comparison of techniques.World journal of hepatology · 2021Review
- A decade of multi-modality PET and MR imaging in abdominal oncology.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Diagnostic Value of Delayed PET/MR in Liver Metastasis in Comparison With PET/CT.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- The Value ofFrontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Hybrid imaging of the abdomen and pelvis.Der Radiologe · 2020Review
- Improving MR sequence of 18F-FDG PET/MR for diagnosing and staging gastric Cancer: a comparison study toCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2020Article
- [Hybrid imaging of the abdomen and pelvis. German version].Der Radiologe · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of [18F]FDG-PET/MRI with PET/CT for the detection of liver metastases.
methods32 patients with solid malignancies underwent [18F]FDG-PET/CT and subsequent PET/MRI of the liver. Two readers assessed both datasets regarding lesion characterization (benign, indeterminate, malignant), conspicuity and diagnostic confidence. An imaging follow-up (mean interval: 185±92 days) and/-or histopathological specimen served as standards of reference. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for both modalities. Accuracy was determined by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Values of conspicuity and diagnostic confidence were compared using Wilcoxon-signed-rank test.
resultsThe standard of reference revealed 113 liver lesions in 26 patients (malignant: n = 45; benign: n = 68). For PET/MRI a higher accuracy (PET/CT: 82.4%; PET/MRI: 96.1%; p<0.001) as well as sensitivity (67.8% vs. 92.2%, p<0.01) and NPV (82.0% vs. 95.1%, p<0.05) were observed. PET/MRI offered higher lesion conspicuity (PET/CT: 2.0±1.1 [median: 2; range 0-3]; PET/MRI: 2.8±0.5 [median: 3; range 0-3]; p<0.001) and diagnostic confidence (PET/CT: 2.0±0.8 [median: 2; range: 1-3]; PET/MRI 2.6±0.6 [median: 3; range: 1-3]; p<0.001). Furthermore, PET/MRI enabled the detection of additional PET-negative metastases (reader 1: 10; reader 2: 12).
conclusionsPET/MRI offers higher diagnostic accuracy compared to PET/CT for the detection of liver metastases.
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.