Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28956113›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2018

Implementing diffusion-weighted MRI for body imaging in prospective multicentre trials: current considerations and future perspectives.

N M deSouza, J M Winfield, J C Waterton, A Weller, M-V Papoutsaki, S J Doran, D J Collins, L Fournier, D Sullivan, T Chenevert and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. A whole-body diffusion MRI normal atlas: development, evaluation and initial use.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

14 authors at 10 institutions in 5 countries.

N M deSouzaCRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK. Nandita.Desouza@icr.ac.uk.
J M WinfieldCRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK.
J C WatertonManchester Academic Health Sciences Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
A WellerCRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK.
M-V PapoutsakiCRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK.
S J DoranCRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK.
D J CollinsCRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK.
L FournierAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Radiology Department, Université Paris Descartes Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
D SullivanDuke Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
T ChenevertDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
A JacksonManchester Academic Health Sciences Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
M BossApplied Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Boulder, CO, USA.
S TrattnigDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Y LiuEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.
Institute of Cancer Research · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRDuke Medical Center · USEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer · BEManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBMedical University of Vienna · ATMichigan Medicine · USNational Institute of Standards and Technology · USUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 12762Cancer Research UK 16464Cancer Research UK 16465Cancer Research UK 18097Medical Research Council G0701533
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For body imaging, diffusion-weighted MRI may be used for tumour detection, staging, prognostic information, assessing response and follow-up. Disease detection and staging involve qualitative, subjective assessment of images, whereas for prognosis, progression or response, quantitative evaluation of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is required. Validation and qualification of ADC in multicentre trials involves examination of i) technical performance to determine biomarker bias and reproducibility and ii) biological performance to interrogate a specific aspect of biology or to forecast outcome. Unfortunately, the variety of acquisition and analysis methodologies employed at different centres make ADC values non-comparable between them. This invalidates implementation in multicentre trials and limits utility of ADC as a biomarker. This article reviews the factors contributing to ADC variability in terms of data acquisition and analysis. Hardware and software considerations are discussed when implementing standardised protocols across multi-vendor platforms together with methods for quality assurance and quality control. Processes of data collection, archiving, curation, analysis, central reading and handling incidental findings are considered in the conduct of multicentre trials. Data protection and good clinical practice are essential prerequisites. Developing international consensus of procedures is critical to successful validation if ADC is to become a useful biomarker in oncology. KEY POINTS: • Standardised acquisition/analysis allows quantification of imaging biomarkers in multicentre trials. • Establishing "precision" of the measurement in the multicentre context is essential. • A repository with traceable data of known provenance promotes further research.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingDisease ProgressionHealthy VolunteersHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicNeoplasmsPrognosisProspective StudiesQuality Assurance, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareDiffusion-weighted MRIMulticentre trialsQuality assuranceQuantitationStandardization

Identifiers

PMID28956113
PMCPMC5811587
OpenAlexW2759090019

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.