ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Contrast-enhanced 3T MR Perfusion of Musculoskeletal Tumours: T1 Value Heterogeneity Assessment and Evaluation of the Influence of T1 Estimation Methods on Quantitative Parameters.
Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correlation of texture analysis of paraspinal musculature on MRI with different clinical endpoints: Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS).European radiology · 2019Trial
- Added-value of advanced magnetic resonance imaging to conventional morphologic analysis for the differentiation between benign and malignant non-fatty soft-tissue tumors.European radiology · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate intra-tumour and striated muscle T1 value heterogeneity and the influence of different methods of T1 estimation on the variability of quantitative perfusion parameters. MATERIAL AND
methodsEighty-two patients with a histologically confirmed musculoskeletal tumour were prospectively included in this study and, with ethics committee approval, underwent contrast-enhanced MR perfusion and T1 mapping. T1 value variations in viable tumour areas and in normal-appearing striated muscle were assessed. In 20 cases, normal muscle perfusion parameters were calculated using three different methods: signal based and gadolinium concentration based on fixed and variable T1 values.
resultsTumour and normal muscle T1 values were significantly different (p = 0.0008). T1 value heterogeneity was higher in tumours than in normal muscle (variation of 19.8% versus 13%). The T1 estimation method had a considerable influence on the variability of perfusion parameters. Fixed T1 values yielded higher coefficients of variation than variable T1 values (mean 109.6 ± 41.8% and 58.3 ± 14.1% respectively). Area under the curve was the least variable parameter (36%).
conclusionT1 values in musculoskeletal tumours are significantly different and more heterogeneous than normal muscle. Patient-specific T1 estimation is needed for direct inter-patient comparison of perfusion parameters. KEY POINTS: • T1 value variation in musculoskeletal tumours is considerable. • T1 values in muscle and tumours are significantly different. • Patient-specific T1 estimation is needed for comparison of inter-patient perfusion parameters. • Technical variation is higher in permeability than semiquantitative perfusion parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28616730What 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.