Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30655259›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2019

Utility of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Perfusion-Weighted MR Imaging and

Z Qiao, X Zhao, K Wang, Y Zhang, D Fan, T Yu, H Shen, Q Chen, L Ai

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Reirradiation of recurrent brain tumors: a review by the ESTRO CNS Focus Group.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2027
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Assessment of Brain Tumour Perfusion Using Early-PhaseMolecular imaging and biology · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Z QiaoFrom the Departments of Nuclear Medicine (Z.Q., X.Z., K.W., Y.Z., D.F., Q.C., L.A.).ORCID 0000-0002-0701-577X
X ZhaoFrom the Departments of Nuclear Medicine (Z.Q., X.Z., K.W., Y.Z., D.F., Q.C., L.A.).ORCID 0000-0003-2390-1912
K WangFrom the Departments of Nuclear Medicine (Z.Q., X.Z., K.W., Y.Z., D.F., Q.C., L.A.).ORCID 0000-0002-2471-5460
Y ZhangFrom the Departments of Nuclear Medicine (Z.Q., X.Z., K.W., Y.Z., D.F., Q.C., L.A.).ORCID 0000-0001-9012-0783
D FanFrom the Departments of Nuclear Medicine (Z.Q., X.Z., K.W., Y.Z., D.F., Q.C., L.A.).ORCID 0000-0002-8629-1739
T YuDepartment of Medical Imaging (T.Y.), Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8534-7561
H ShenRadiology (H.S.), Beijing Tian Tan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9296-6915
Q ChenFrom the Departments of Nuclear Medicine (Z.Q., X.Z., K.W., Y.Z., D.F., Q.C., L.A.).ORCID 0000-0003-3653-3127
L AiFrom the Departments of Nuclear Medicine (Z.Q., X.Z., K.W., Y.Z., D.F., Q.C., L.A.) ailin@bjtth.org.ORCID 0000-0002-8688-7778

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeBoth MATERIALS AND

methodsForty-two patients with high-grade gliomas were enrolled in this study. The final diagnosis was determined by histopathologic analysis or clinical follow-up. PWI and PET parameters were recorded and compared between patients with recurrence and those with radiation injury using Student

resultsThe final diagnosis was recurrence in 33 patients and radiation injury in 9. PET/CT showed a patient-based sensitivity and specificity of 0.909 and 0.556, respectively, while PWI showed values of 0.667 and 0.778, respectively. The maximum standardized uptake value, mean standardized uptake value, tumor-to-background maximum standardized uptake value, and mean relative CBV were significantly higher for patients with recurrence than for patients with radiation injury. All these parameters showed a high discriminative power in receiver operating characteristic analysis. The optimal cutoff values for the tumor-to-background maximum standardized uptake value and mean relative CBV were 1.85 and 1.83, respectively, and corresponding sensitivities and specificities for the diagnosis of recurrence were 0.97 and 0.667 and 0.788 and 0.88, respectively. Areas under the curve for the tumor-to-background maximum standardized uptake value and mean relative CBV were 0.847 ± 0.077 and 0.845 ± 0.078, respectively. Combined assessment of the tumor-to-background maximum standardized uptake value and mean relative CBV showed the largest area under the curve (0.953 ± 0.031), with corresponding sensitivity and specificity of 0.848 and 1.0, respectively.

conclusionsBoth

Indexed as

AdultAgedBrain NeoplasmsFemaleGliomaHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMethionineMiddle AgedMultimodal ImagingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeuroimagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRadiation InjuriesROC CurveMethionine

Identifiers

PMID30655259
PMCPMC7028634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.