Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28411307›Full record

ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2018

Ferumoxytol Is Not Retained in Kidney Allografts in Patients Undergoing Acute Rejection.

Maryam Aghighi, Laura Pisani, Ashok J Theruvath, Anne M Muehe, Jessica Donig, Ramsha Khan, Samantha J Holdsworth, Neeraja Kambham, Waldo Concepcion, Paul C Grimm and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effect of clinically relevant iron oxide nanoparticles on macrophage polarization, tumor growth and tumor microenvironment modulation.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. MRI of kidney size matters.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Renal MRI: From Nephron to NMR Signal.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Targeting of CD163International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  14. 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

11 authors.

Maryam AghighiDepartment of Radiology, Pediatric Molecular Imaging in the Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (@PedsMIPS), Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University School of Medicine, 725 Welch Road, Stanford, 94305, CA, USA.
Laura PisaniDepartment of Radiology, Pediatric Molecular Imaging in the Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (@PedsMIPS), Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University School of Medicine, 725 Welch Road, Stanford, 94305, CA, USA.
Ashok J TheruvathDepartment of Radiology, Pediatric Molecular Imaging in the Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (@PedsMIPS), Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University School of Medicine, 725 Welch Road, Stanford, 94305, CA, USA.
Anne M MueheDepartment of Radiology, Pediatric Molecular Imaging in the Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (@PedsMIPS), Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University School of Medicine, 725 Welch Road, Stanford, 94305, CA, USA.
Jessica DonigDepartment of Radiology, Pediatric Molecular Imaging in the Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (@PedsMIPS), Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University School of Medicine, 725 Welch Road, Stanford, 94305, CA, USA.
Ramsha KhanDepartment of Radiology, Pediatric Molecular Imaging in the Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (@PedsMIPS), Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University School of Medicine, 725 Welch Road, Stanford, 94305, CA, USA.
Samantha J HoldsworthDepartment of Radiology, Pediatric Molecular Imaging in the Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (@PedsMIPS), Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University School of Medicine, 725 Welch Road, Stanford, 94305, CA, USA.
Neeraja KambhamDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Waldo ConcepcionDepartment of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Paul C GrimmDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Heike E Daldrup-LinkDepartment of Radiology, Pediatric Molecular Imaging in the Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (@PedsMIPS), Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University School of Medicine, 725 Welch Road, Stanford, 94305, CA, USA. H.E.Daldrup-Link@stanford.edu.

Funding

Translational Oncology Research Program (Project-005)P30CA124435 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Melinda L. Telli · 2007 to 2026
$71.4M
Nano Characterization and Nano Fabrication CoreU54CA199075 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GAMBHIR, SANJIV S · 2015 to 2019
$9.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA124435NCI NIH HHS U54 CA199075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate whether ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle (USPIO)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can detect allograft rejection in pediatric kidney transplant patients. PROCEDURES: The USPIO ferumoxytol has a long blood half-life and is phagocytosed by macrophages. In an IRB-approved single-center prospective clinical trial, 26 pediatric patients and adolescents (age 10-26 years) with acute allograft rejection (n = 5), non-rejecting allografts (n = 13), and normal native kidneys (n = 8) underwent multi-echo T2* fast spoiled gradient-echo (FSPGR) MRI after intravenous injection (p.i.) of 5 mg Fe/kg ferumoxytol. T2* relaxation times at 4 h p.i. (perfusion phase) and more than 20 h p.i. (macrophage phase) were compared with biopsy results. The presence of rejection was assessed using the Banff criteria, and the prevalence of macrophages on CD163 immunostains was determined based on a semi-quantitative scoring system. MRI and histology data were compared among patient groups using t tests, analysis of variance, and regression analyses with a significance threshold of p < 0.05.

resultsAt 4 h p.i., mean T2* values were 6.6 ± 1.5 ms for native kidneys and 3.9 ms for one allograft undergoing acute immune rejection. Surprisingly, at 20-24 h p.i., one rejecting allograft showed significantly prolonged T2* relaxation times (37.0 ms) compared to native kidneys (6.3 ± 1.7 ms) and non-rejecting allografts (7.6 ± 0.1 ms). Likewise, three additional rejecting allografts showed significantly prolonged T2* relaxation times compared to non-rejecting allografts at later post-contrast time points, 25-97 h p.i. (p = 0.008). Histological analysis revealed edema and compressed microvessels in biopsies of rejecting allografts. Allografts with and without rejection showed insignificant differences in macrophage content on histopathology (p = 0.44).

conclusionAfter ferumoxytol administration, renal allografts undergoing acute rejection show prolonged T2* values compared to non-rejecting allografts. Since histology revealed no significant differences in macrophage content, the increasing T2* value is likely due to the combined effect of reduced perfusion and increased edema in rejecting allografts.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationAdolescentAllograftsAntigens, CDAntigens, Differentiation, MyelomonocyticCD163 AntigenChildFerrosoferric OxideGraft RejectionHumansKineticsMagnetic Resonance ImagingReceptors, Cell SurfaceYoung AdultAntigens, CDAntigens, Differentiation, MyelomonocyticCD163 AntigenFerrosoferric OxideReceptors, Cell SurfaceFerumoxytolIron oxide nanoparticlesKidney allograft rejectionMR imaging

Identifiers

PMID28411307
PMCPMC6391060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.