Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28258323›Full record

ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2017

Is the combination of MR and CT findings useful in determining the tumor grade of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors?

Fumihito Toshima, Dai Inoue, Takahiro Komori, Kotaro Yoshida, Norihide Yoneda, Tetsuya Minami, Osamu Matsui, Hiroko Ikeda, Toshifumi Gabata

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fumihito ToshimaDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8641, Japan. fumihitotoshima@gmail.com.
Dai InoueDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8641, Japan.
Takahiro KomoriDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8641, Japan.
Kotaro YoshidaDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8641, Japan.
Norihide YonedaDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8641, Japan.
Tetsuya MinamiDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8641, Japan.
Osamu MatsuiDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8641, Japan.
Hiroko IkedaDepartment of Pathology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8641, Japan.
Toshifumi GabataDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8641, Japan.
Kanazawa University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo retrospectively elucidate the findings useful in determining the tumor grade of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) by combined assessment of magnetic resonance (MR) and dynamic computed tomography (CT) images. MATERIALS AND

methodsEighty-nine patients with PNETs (96 lesions) were included, and classified as G1, 59; G2, 29; and G3, 8 lesions. Image analysis included lesion diameter, shape, enhancement pattern on arterial phase (AP) and delayed phase CT images, calcification, cystic portion, main pancreatic duct dilatation, signal-intensity on T1-, T2-weighted MR images, and appearance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC).

resultsSignificant differences among G1, G2, and G3 groups were noted in tumor maximal diameter (p < 0.0001), shape (p < 0.0001), enhancement pattern on AP image (p < 0.0001), cystic portion (p = 0.012), and ADC finding. In multivariate analysis, ADC finding was the independent factor (p = 0.002). The combination findings of low ADC ratio (ADC value of the lesion/ADC value of the parenchyma <0.94), not homogeneous hyper-attenuation, lobulated shape, and hyper-intensity on T2-weighted image were suggestive of G2 or G3 with a probability of 100%. Conversely, all lesions with high ADC ratio and small size (≤25 mm) belonged to the G1 group.

conclusionCombined assessment of MR and CT findings could improve the prediction of tumor grading in PNETs.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultimodal ImagingNeoplasm GradingNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomography (CT)Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)Neuroendocrine carcinomaNeuroendocrine tumors G1Neuroendocrine tumors G2Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Identifiers

PMID28258323
OpenAlexW2593734298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.