Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29076749›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018

UK quantitative WB-DWI technical workgroup: consensus meeting recommendations on optimisation, quality control, processing and analysis of quantitative whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging for cancer.

Anna Barnes, Roberto Alonzi, Matthew Blackledge, Geoff Charles-Edwards, David J Collins, Gary Cook, Glynn Coutts, Vicky Goh, Martin Graves, Charles Kelly and 15 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

25 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Anna Barnes1 Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London , University College London , London , UK.
Roberto Alonzi3 Clinical Oncology, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre , Northwood , UK.
Matthew Blackledge4 Cancer Research UK Cancer Imaging Centre, Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Institute of Cancer Research , Institute of Cancer Research , Sutton , UK.
Geoff Charles-Edwards5 Medical Physics, Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, Guy's and St Thomas'-NHS foundation Trust, King's College London , Guy's and St Thomas'-NHS foundation Trust, King's College London , London , UK.
David J Collins4 Cancer Research UK Cancer Imaging Centre, Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Institute of Cancer Research , Institute of Cancer Research , Sutton , UK.
Gary Cook6 School of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College , London , UK.
Glynn Coutts9 MR Physics, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust , The Christie NHS Foundation Trust , Manchester , UK.
Vicky Goh6 School of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College , London , UK.
Martin Graves10 Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Cambridge , UK.
Charles Kelly11 Department of Radiology, Northern Centre for CancerCare, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, NHS Foundations Trust , Northern Centre for CancerCare, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, NHS Foundations Trust , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK.
Dow-Mu Koh4 Cancer Research UK Cancer Imaging Centre, Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Institute of Cancer Research , Institute of Cancer Research , Sutton , UK.
Hazel McCallum11 Department of Radiology, Northern Centre for CancerCare, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, NHS Foundations Trust , Northern Centre for CancerCare, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, NHS Foundations Trust , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK.
Marc E Miquel13 Medical Physics , Barts Health NHS Trust , London , UK.
James O'Connor14 Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester , Manchester , UK.
Anwar Padhani16 Paul Strickland Cancer Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre , Northwood , UK.
Rachel Pearson11 Department of Radiology, Northern Centre for CancerCare, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, NHS Foundations Trust , Northern Centre for CancerCare, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, NHS Foundations Trust , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK.
Andrew Priest10 Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Cambridge , UK.
Andrea Rockall12 Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden Hospital Foundation Trust , The Royal Marsden Hospital Foundation Trust , Surrey , UK.
James Stirling18 PET Centre, King's College , London , UK.
Stuart Taylor1 Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London , University College London , London , UK.
Nina Tunariu4 Cancer Research UK Cancer Imaging Centre, Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Institute of Cancer Research , Institute of Cancer Research , Sutton , UK.
Jan van der Meulen20 Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London , UK.
Darren Walls21 Institute Nuclear Medicine, University College London , London , UK.
Jessica Winfield4 Cancer Research UK Cancer Imaging Centre, Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Institute of Cancer Research , Institute of Cancer Research , Sutton , UK.
Shonit Punwani1 Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London , University College London , London , UK.
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBCancer Research UK · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GBMount Vernon Cancer Centre · GBRoyal Marsden Hospital · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBLondon Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15267Cancer Research UK 16463Cancer Research UK 16464Cancer Research UK 20000Cancer Research UK 22746Department of Health EME/13/122/01Department of Health EME/16/68/34Department of Health HCS SCL-2014-05-002Department of Health PDF-2012-05-441Medical Research Council G0701945Wellcome Trust 203148/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveApplication of whole body diffusion-weighted MRI (WB-DWI) for oncology are rapidly increasing within both research and routine clinical domains. However, WB-DWI as a quantitative imaging biomarker (QIB) has significantly slower adoption. To date, challenges relating to accuracy and reproducibility, essential criteria for a good QIB, have limited widespread clinical translation. In recognition, a UK workgroup was established in 2016 to provide technical consensus guidelines (to maximise accuracy and reproducibility of WB-MRI QIBs) and accelerate the clinical translation of quantitative WB-DWI applications for oncology.

methodsA panel of experts convened from cancer centres around the UK with subspecialty expertise in quantitative imaging and/or the use of WB-MRI with DWI. A formal consensus method was used to obtain consensus agreement regarding best practice. Questions were asked about the appropriateness or otherwise on scanner hardware and software, sequence optimisation, acquisition protocols, reporting, and ongoing quality control programs to monitor precision and accuracy and agreement on quality control.

resultsThe consensus panel was able to reach consensus on 73% (255/351) items and based on consensus areas made recommendations to maximise accuracy and reproducibly of quantitative WB-DWI studies performed at 1.5T. The panel were unable to reach consensus on the majority of items related to quantitative WB-DWI performed at 3T.

conclusionThis UK Quantitative WB-DWI Technical Workgroup consensus provides guidance on maximising accuracy and reproducibly of quantitative WB-DWI for oncology. The consensus guidance can be used by researchers and clinicians to harmonise WB-DWI protocols which will accelerate clinical translation of WB-DWI-derived QIBs.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsQuality ControlUnited KingdomWhole Body Imaging

Identifiers

PMID29076749
PMCPMC5966219
OpenAlexW2766611113

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.