ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2016
Concurrent functional and metabolic assessment of brain tumors using hybrid PET/MR imaging.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Update on the Use of PET/MRI Contrast Agents and Tracers in Brain Oncology: A Systematic Review.International journal of nanomedicine · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Perfusion weighted imaging using combined gradient/spin echo EPIK: Brain tumour applications in hybrid MR-PET.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
- The Additional Value ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Neurologic Applications of PET/MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America · 2017Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate diagnostic accuracy of perfusion weighted imaging (PWI) and positron emission tomography (PET) using an integrated PET/MR system in tumor grading as well as in differentiating recurrent tumor from treatment-induced effects (TIE) in brain tumor patients. Twenty patients (Group A: treatment naïve, 9 patients with 16 lesions; Group B: post-therapy, 11 patients with 18 lesions) underwent fluorine 18 ((18)F) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) brain PET/MR with PWI. Two blinded readers predicted low versus high-grade tumor (for Group A) and tumor recurrence versus TIE (for Group B) based solely on tumor rCBV (regional cerebral blood volume) and SUV (standardized uptake values). Tumor histopathology at resection was the reference standard. Using rCBV(mean) ≤ 1.74 as a cut-off, 100% sensitivity and 74% specificity were observed, whereas 75% sensitivity and 89.7% specificity were observed with SUV(mean) ≤ 4.0 as a cut-off to classify patients as test positive for low-grade tumors (Group A) and TIE (Group B). Diagnostic accuracy for detection of low-grade tumors was 90% using PWI and 40% using PET in Group A (p = 0.056); for detection of TIE in Group B, diagnostic accuracy was 94.1% using PWI and 55.6% using PET (p = 0.033). No significant correlation was demonstrated between rCBV parameters and SUV in Group A (mean values: p > 0.403), Group B (p > 0.06) and in the entire population (p > 0.07). Best overall sensitivity and specificity were obtained using rCBV(mean) ≤ 1.74 and SUV(mean) ≤ 4.0 cut-off values. PWI demonstrated better diagnostic accuracy in both groups. Poor correlation was observed between FDG and rCBV parameters.
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.