Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30505216›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of nuclear medicine

Quantitative accuracy of positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography/computed tomography for cervical cancer.

Jorge Daniel Oldan, Amir Hossein Khandani, Julia R Fielding, Ellen Louise Jones, Paola Alvarez Gehrig, Tiffany Matoska Sills, Pinakpani Roy, Weili Lin

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of nuclear medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Jorge Daniel OldanDepartment of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Amir Hossein KhandaniDepartment of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Julia R FieldingDepartment of Radiology, Division of Abdominal Radiology, University of Texas-Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Ellen Louise JonesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Paola Alvarez GehrigDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Tiffany Matoska SillsDepartment of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Pinakpani RoyDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Weili LinBiomedical Research Imaging Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the spread of positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR), the question of comparability of studies becomes important. We aim to determine whether PET/MR and PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) are comparable for the case of cervical cancer. Fifteen cervical cancer patients identified by either a radiation oncologist or an oncologic surgeon had both PET/MR and PET/CT performed for initial staging within 3 weeks. We then compared the results both quantitatively (measuring standardized uptake values [SUVs] on visible lesions) as well as qualitatively (having radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians interprets the results). While interpretations between PET/MR and PET/CT varied in many cases, SUVs of primary lesions were similar to within 25% in all but one case, and correlation coefficient was 0.92. Maximum SUV ranged between 4.9 and 25.2 for PET-MR and between 5.8 and 30.4 for PET-CT for primary tumors and between 1.5 and 18.8 for PET-MR and between 1.8 and 20.8 for PET-CT for nodes. However, clinical reads often varied significantly between PET/MR and PET/CT. This suggests that SUV is similar on PET/MR and PET/CT although the differing anatomic modalities available for correlation may make the difference in terms of qualitative interpretation.

Indexed as

Cervical cancerpositron emission tomography/computed tomographypositron emission tomography/magnetic resonancestandardized uptake value

Identifiers

PMID30505216
PMCPMC6216731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.