Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29292485›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI research2018

Positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (PET-MRI) for response assessment after radiation therapy of cervical carcinoma: a pilot study.

J E Mongula, F C H Bakers, S Vöö, L Lutgens, T van Gorp, R F P M Kruitwagen, B F M Slangen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Diagnostic performance of whole-body [European radiology · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The use of PET/MRI in radiotherapy.Insights into imaging · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

J E MongulaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Postbus 5800, 6202, Maastricht, AZ, The Netherlands. jordymongula@hotmail.com.
F C H BakersDepartment of Radiology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
S VööDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
L LutgensDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
T van GorpDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Postbus 5800, 6202, Maastricht, AZ, The Netherlands.
R F P M KruitwagenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Postbus 5800, 6202, Maastricht, AZ, The Netherlands.
B F M SlangenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Postbus 5800, 6202, Maastricht, AZ, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvanced stage cervical cancer is primarily treated by radiotherapy. Local tumor control is a prerequisite for cure. Imaging after treatment is controversial. Positron emission tomography (PET) combined with computer tomography (PET-CT) shows great promise for detecting metastases. On the other hand, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is superior in depicting anatomical details. The combination of PET-MRI could result in more accurate evaluation of cervical cancer treatment outcome. The aim of this pilot study is to share our initial experience with PET-MRI in the evaluation of treatment response in cervical cancer after radiation treatment.

methodsTen patients with cervical carcinoma (FIGO ≥IB2) were prospectively evaluated. Eleven weeks (median; range 8-15 weeks) after radiation therapy, treatment response was evaluated by PET-MRI. The PET, MRI, and combined PET-MRI images were evaluated for the presence of local residual tumor and metastasis. Diagnostic performance was assessed by area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for evaluation of local residual tumor. The readers were blinded for outcome data. Local residual disease, metastasis, diagnostic confidence, and change of opinion were scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The reference standard consisted of pathology and/or follow-up according to the clinical guidelines.

resultsThree out of ten patients had local residual abnormalities suggestive for tumor residue after radiation treatment. The availability of both PET and MRI resulted in an increase in diagnostic confidence in 80-90% of all patients. Change of opinion was observed in 70% and change of policy in 50%, especially in the group with residual tumor. The diagnostic accuracy increased significantly for the radiologist if PET-MRI was combined (AUC .54 versus .83).

conclusionsPET-MRI shows promise for evaluation of treatment response after radiation for cervical cancer, especially increasing diagnostic confidence, while potentially increasing diagnostic performance.

Indexed as

Cervical cancerMRIPETPET-MRIRadiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID29292485
PMCPMC5748389

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.