ArticlePloS one2016
Evaluation of [18F]-FDG-Based Hybrid Imaging Combinations for Assessment of Bone Marrow Involvement in Lymphoma at Initial Staging.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ferumoxytol: Another Exciting Addition to the Growing Field of Bone Marrow Imaging.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2023Article
- MRI and PET/MRI in hematologic malignancies.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2020Review
- Application of the apparent diffusion coefficient in magnetic resonance imaging in an assessment of the early response to treatment in Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma - pilot study.Polish journal of radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of our study was to determine the value of different hybrid imaging combinations for the detection of focal and diffuse bone marrow infiltration in lymphoma. Patients with histologically proven lymphoma, who underwent both [18F]-FDG-PET/CT and whole-body MRI (including T1- and diffusion-weighted [DWI] sequences) within seven days, and a subsequent bone marrow biopsy, were retrospectively included. Three hybrid imaging combinations were evaluated: (1) [18F]-FDG-PET/CT; (2) [18F]-FDG-PET/T1; and (3) [18F]-FDG-PET/DWI. The presence of focal or diffuse bone marrow infiltration was assessed by two rater teams. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the detection of overall, focal, and diffuse bone marrow involvement were compared between the three hybrid imaging combinations. Overall, lymphomatous bone marrow involvement was found in 16/60 patients (focal, 8; diffuse, 8). Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 81.3%, 95.5%, and 91.7% for [18F]-FDG-PET/CT; 81.3%, 97.7%, and 93.3% for [18F]-FDG-PET/T1; and 81.3%, 95.5%, and 91.7% for [18F]-FDG-PET/DWI. No statistically significant differences between the three imaging combinations were observed, based on overall bone marrow involvement, focal involvement, or diffuse involvement. The sensitivity of all three imaging combinations for detecting diffuse bone marrow involvement was only moderate (62.5% for all three combinations). Although the combination of [18F]-FDG-PET and T1-weighted MRI generally showed the best diagnostic performance for the detection of bone marrow involvement in lymphoma, it was not significantly superior to the two other hybrid imaging combinations. Since the sensitivity of all imaging combinations for the detection of diffuse bone marrow involvement was only moderate, bone marrow biopsy cannot be replaced by imaging as yet.
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.