Trial reportEuropean radiology2019
Integrated versus separate reading of F-18 FDG-PET/CT and MRI for abdominal malignancies - effect on staging outcomes and diagnostic confidence.
Trial report in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A decade of multi-modality PET and MR imaging in abdominal oncology.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAbdominal cancer patients increasingly undergo multimodality imaging. This study evaluates effects of integrated reading of PET/CT and abdominal MRI on staging outcomes and diagnostic confidence compared to "routine" separate reading.
methodsIn total, N = 201 patients who underwent abdominal MRI and whole-body F-18 FDG-PET/CT within 14 days were retrospectively analyzed. Original MRI and PET/CT reports were retrieved and reported findings translated into a 5-point confidence score (1 = definitely benign to 5 = definitely malignant) for 7 standardized regions (primary tumor/regional lymph nodes/distant lymph nodes/liver/lung/bone/peritoneum) per patient. Two-reader teams (radiologist + nuclear medicine physician) then performed integrated reading of the images using the same scoring system.
resultsIntegrated reading led to discrepant findings in 59 of 201 (29%) of patients, with potential clinical impact in 25 of 201 (12%). Equivocal scores decreased from 5.7% (PET/CT) and 5.4% (MRI) to 3.2% (p = 0.05 and p = 0.14). Compared to the original PET/CT reports, integrated reading led to increased diagnostic confidence in 8.9% versus decreased confidence in 6.6% (p = 0.26). Compared with the original MRI reports, an increase in confidence occurred in 9.6% versus a decrease in 6.9% (p = 0.18). The effect on diagnostic confidence was most pronounced in lymph nodes (p = 0.08 vs. MRI), cervical cancer (p = 0.03 vs. MRI), and recurrent disease staging (p = 0.06 vs. PET/CT).
conclusionsIntegrated PET/CT+MRI reading alters staging outcomes in a substantial proportion of cases with potential clinical impact in ± 1 out of 9 patients. It can also have a small positive effect on diagnostic confidence, particularly in lymph nodes and cervical cancer, and in post-treatment settings. These findings support further collaboration between radiology and nuclear medicine disciplines. KEY POINTS: • Increasing numbers of patients undergo multimodality imaging consisting of both MRI and PET/CT for staging of abdominal malignancies. • Integrated reading of FDG-PET/CT and abdominal MR images by a team, consisting of a radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician, can alter staging outcomes compared to separate reporting of the exams in a substantial proportion of cases and with potential clinical impact in ± 1 out of 9 patients. • Integrated PET/CT+MRI reading can have a small positive effect on diagnostic confidence.
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.