Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26816195›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2016

Quantitative assessment of atherosclerotic plaques on (18)F-FDG PET/MRI: comparison with a PET/CT hybrid system.

Xiang Li, Daniel Heber, Ivo Rausch, Dietrich Beitzke, Marius E Mayerhoefer, Sazan Rasul, Michael Kreissl, Markus Mitthauser, Wolfgang Wadsak, Markus Hartenbach and 5 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Hybrid positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in carotid atherosclerosis: Not ready for prime time?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022
    Article
  7. Radiology · 2022
    Observational
  8. Article
  9. Accuracy of PET quantification in [Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022
    Article
  10. MUW researcher of the month.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. PET/MRI of atherosclerosis.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2020
    Review
  14. Review
  15. [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019
    Article
  16. Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019
    Article
  17. Partial volume correction for improved PET quantification inJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. MR/PET Imaging of the Cardiovascular System.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2017
    Review
  20. Cardiac Applications of PET-MR.Current cardiology reports · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Xiang LiDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Daniel HeberDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Ivo RauschCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, General Hospital Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Dietrich BeitzkeDivision of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Marius E MayerhoeferDivision of General and Pediatric Radiology, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sazan RasulDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Michael KreisslDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Markus MitthauserDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Wolfgang WadsakDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Markus HartenbachDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Alexander HaugDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Xiaoli ZhangDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Beijing, China.
Christian LoeweDivision of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas BeyerCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, General Hospital Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Marcus HackerDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. marcus.hacker@meduniwien.ac.at.
Medical University of Vienna · ATState Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular DiseaseUniversity Hospital Augsburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePET with (18)F-FDG has the potential to assess vascular macrophage metabolism. (18)F-FDG is most often used in combination with contrast-enhanced CT to localize increased metabolism to specific arterial lesions. Novel (18)F-FDG PET/MRI hybrid imaging shows high potential for the combined evaluation of atherosclerotic plaques, due to the superior morphological conspicuity of plaque lesions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI uptake quantification compared to PET/CT as a reference standard in patients with carotid atherosclerotic plaques.

methodsThe study group comprised 34 consecutive oncological patients with carotid plaques who underwent both PET/CT and PET/MRI with (18)F-FDG on the same day. The presence of atherosclerotic plaques was confirmed by 3 T MRI scans. Maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) for carotid plaque lesions and the average SUV of the blood pool within the adjacent internal jugular vein were determined and target-to-blood ratios (TBRs, plaque to blood pool) were calculated.

resultsAtherosclerotic lesions with maximum colocalized focal FDG uptake were assessed in each patient. SUVmax values of carotid plaque lesions were significantly lower on PET/MRI than on PET/CT (2.3 ± 0.6 vs. 3.1 ± 0.6; P < 0.01), but were significantly correlated between PET/CT and PET/MRI (Spearman's r = 0.67, P < 0.01). In contrast, TBRmax values of plaque lesions were similar on PET/MRI and on PET/CT (2.2 ± 0.3 vs. 2.2 ± 0.3; P = 0.4), and again were significantly correlated between PET/MRI and PET/CT (Spearman's r = 0.73, P < 0.01). Considering the increasing trend in SUVmax and TBRmax values from early to delayed imaging time-points on PET/CT and PET/MRI, respectively, with continuous clearance of radioactivity from the blood, a slight underestimation of TBRmax values may also be expected with PET/MRI compared with PET/CT.

conclusionSUVmax and TBRmax values are widely accepted reference parameters for estimation of the radioactivity of atherosclerotic plaques on PET/CT. However, due to a systematic underestimation of SUVmax and TBRmax with PET/MRI, the optimal cut-off values indicating the presence of inflamed plaque tissue need to be newly defined for PET/MRI.

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18Magnetic Resonance ImagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyAgedAged, 80 and overCarotid Artery DiseasesCarotid StenosisFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedPlaque, AtheroscleroticReproducibility of ResultsFluorodeoxyglucose F1818F-FDGAtherosclerosisCarotid plaqueInflammationPET/CTPET/MRI

Identifiers

PMID26816195
PMCPMC4906060
OpenAlexW2256328745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.