ArticleMedicine2018
18F-FDG PET/MR imaging of lymphoma nodal target lesions: Comparison of PET standardized uptake value (SUV) with MR apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC).
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of diffusion-weighted MRI and [European radiology · 2024Review
- Ex vivo NMR metabolomics approach using cerebrospinal fluid for the diagnosis of primary CNS lymphoma: Correlation with MR imaging characteristics.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Relative clinical utility of simultaneousThe Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Castleman disease versus lymphoma in neck lymph nodes: a comparative study using contrast-enhanced CT.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare positron emission tomography (PET) standardized uptake value (SUV) with magnetic resonance (MR) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of nodal target lesions in patients with F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG)-avid lymphomas by simultaneous PET/MR.Patients with histologically proven Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma underwent PET/MR limited field of view of FDG-avid target nodal lesions. For PET images, a region of interest (ROI) was drawn around the target nodal lesion and the SUVmax and SUVmean was measured. For MR ADC measurements a ROI was placed over the target nodal lesion on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and ADCmin and ADCmean (mean ADC) values within the ROI were recorded.Thirty-nine patients (19 women, 20 men; 13 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and 26 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma) were included in the analysis. Sixty-six nodal lesions detected by PET/CT (19 PET-negative and 47 PET-positive) were analyzed by PET/MR. PET/MR quantitative assessments showed that ADCmin and ADCmean were accurate for discriminating positive from negative nodal lymphoma, with an AUC of 0.927 and 0.947, respectively. The ROC curve analysis of ADCmean versus SUVmax and SUVmean was not statistically significant (difference=0.044, P = .08 and difference = 0.045, P = .07; respectively). A substantial inverse association was observed between ADCmean with SUVmean and SUVmax (rho = -0.611; -0.607; P < .0001, respectively). A moderate inverse association was found between ADCmin with SUVmean and SUVmax (rho = -0.529, -0.520; P < .0001, respectively). Interobserver variability of quantitative assessment showed very good agreement for all variables (ICC>0.87).A significant correlation between ADCs and SUVs is found in FDG avid lymphomas. ADCmean is not inferior to PET SUV in discriminating positive and negative nodal lymphomas. Further larger studies are warranted to validate quantitative PET/MR for lymphoma patient management.
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.