Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31201431›Full record

ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2019

The use of PET/MRI for imaging rectal cancer.

Thomas A Hope, Zahra Kassam, Andreas Loening, Michelle M McNamara, Raj Paspulati

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Diagnostic Performance of [World journal of nuclear medicine · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. PET/MRI in colorectal and anal cancers: an update.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. [Complete response after neoadjuvant therapy: how certain is radiology?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2022
    Review
  16. 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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas A HopeDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, M-391, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0628, USA. thomas.hope@ucsf.edu.
Zahra KassamSchulich School of Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Andreas LoeningDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Michelle M McNamaraDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Raj PaspulatiDepartment of Radiology, UH Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Stanford University · USUniversity Hospitals Case Medical Center · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USWestern University · CA

Funding

Qualification and Harmonization of PET/MRI for Cancer Clinical TrialsR01CA212148 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HOPE, THOMAS, LAFOREST, RICHARD ANDRE · 2017 to 2022
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA212148
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Combined PET/MRI is a proposed imaging modality for rectal cancer, leveraging the advantages of MRI and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET. Rectal cancer PET/MRI protocols typically include dedicated pelvis bed positions utilizing small field-of-view T2-weighted imaging. For staging of the primary tumor, PET/MRI can help delineate the extent of tumor better as well as the extent of tumor beyond the muscularis propria. PET uptake may help characterize small lymph nodes, and the use of hepatobiliary phase imaging can improve the detection of small hepatic metastases. The most beneficial aspect of PET/MRI may be in treatment response, although current data are limited on how to combine PET and MRI data in this setting. Limitations of PET/MRI include the inability to detect small pulmonary nodules and issues related to attenuation correction, although the development of new attenuation correction techniques may address this issue. Overall PET/MRI can improve the staging of rectal cancer, although this potential has yet to be fulfilled.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMultimodal ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansLiver NeoplasmsLymphatic MetastasisNeoplasm StagingRadiopharmaceuticalsRectal NeoplasmsFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsPET/MRIRectal cancerStagingTreatment response

Identifiers

PMID31201431
PMCPMC7001508
OpenAlexW2949977288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.