ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2018
Comparison of
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of whole-body [European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic Value of FDG PET/MRI in Females With Pelvic Malignancy-A Systematic Review of the Literature.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Clinical PET/MR.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026Review
- Review
- Application of PET/MRI in Gynecologic Malignancies.Cancers · 2024Review
- The use of PET/MRI in radiotherapy.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- Imaging Evaluation of Peritoneal Metastasis: Current and Promising Techniques.Korean journal of radiology · 2024Review
- Comparing Methods to Determine Complete Response to Chemoradiation in Patients with Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer.Cancers · 2023Article
- 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT for the Management of Gynecological Malignancies: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.Journal of imaging · 2023Review
- Current Update on PET/MRI in Gynecological Malignancies-A Review of the Literature.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Post treatment imaging in patients with local advanced cervical carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Gynecologic tumor board: a radiologist's guide to vulvar and vaginal malignancies.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Review
- Prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, MRI, CT, and bone scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in the initial staging of primary breast cancer patients.European radiology · 2021Article
- Staging, recurrence and follow-up of uterine cervical cancer using MRI: Updated Guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology after revised FIGO staging 2018.European radiology · 2021Article
- A decade of multi-modality PET and MR imaging in abdominal oncology.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Implications of the new FIGO staging and the role of imaging in cervical cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Diagnostic performance of PET/CT and PET/MR in the management of ovarian carcinoma-a literature review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Review
- Relative clinical utility of simultaneousThe Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Diagnostic efficiency of whole-bodyCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2021Article
- Prospective comparison of CT and 18F-FDG PET/MRI in N and M staging of primary breast cancer patients: Initial results.PloS one · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of
methodsSeventy-one consecutive women (54 ± 13 years, range: 25-80 years) with suspected recurrence of cervical (32), ovarian (26), endometrial (7), vulvar (4), and vaginal (2) cancer underwent PET/MRI including a diagnostic contrast-enhanced MRI protocol. PET/MRI and MRI datasets were separately evaluated regarding lesion count, localization, categorization (benign/malignant), and diagnostic confidence (3-point scale; 1-3) by two physicians. The reference standard was based on histopathology results and follow-up imaging. Diagnostic accuracy and proportions of malignant and benign lesions rated correctly were retrospectively compared using McNemar's chi
resultsFifty-five patients showed cancer recurrence. PET/MRI correctly identified more patients with cancer recurrence than MRI alone (100% vs. 83.6%, p < 0.01). In contrast to PET/MRI, MRI alone missed 4/15 patients with pelvic recurrence and miscategorized 8/40 patients with distant metastases as having local recurrence only. Based on the reference standard, 241 lesions were detected in the study cohort (181 malignant, 60 benign). While PET/MRI provided correct identification of 181/181 (100%) malignant lesions, MRI alone correctly identified 135/181 (74.6%) malignant lesions, which was significantly less compared to PET/MRI (p < 0.001). PET/MRI offered superior diagnostic accuracy (99.2% vs. 79.3%, p < 0.001) and diagnostic confidence in the categorization of malignant lesions compared with MRI alone (2.7 ± 0.5 vs. 2.4 ± 0.7, p < 0.001).
conclusionPET/MRI demonstrates excellent diagnostic performance and outperforms MRI alone for whole-body staging of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer, indicating potential changes in therapy management based on evaluation of local recurrence and distant metastatic spread.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.