Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31359108›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2019

Clinical impact of PET/MR in treated colorectal cancer patients.

Barbara J Amorim, Theodore S Hong, Lawrence S Blaszkowsky, Cristina R Ferrone, David L Berger, Liliana G Bordeianou, Rocco Ricciardi, Jeffrey W Clark, David P Ryan, Jennifer Y Wo and 9 more

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic performance of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. PET/MRI in colorectal and anal cancers: an update.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. NEMA NU2-2012 performance measurements of the United Imaging uPMR790: an integrated PET/MR system.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Improving staging of rectal cancer in the pelvis: the role of PET/MRI.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Journal of clinical medicine · 2020
    Article
  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

19 authors at 4 institutions in 6 countries.

Barbara J AmorimDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Theodore S HongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Lawrence S BlaszkowskyDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Cristina R FerroneDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
David L BergerDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Liliana G BordeianouDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Rocco RicciardiDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jeffrey W ClarkDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
David P RyanDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jennifer Y WoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Motaz QadanDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Mark VangelDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Lale UmutluDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
David GrosharDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Assuta Medical Centers, Tel Aviv, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Lina G CañamaquesHospital Universitario Madrid Sanchinarro, Madrid, Spain.
Debra A GervaisDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Umar MahmoodDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Bruce R RosenMartinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Onofrio A CatalanoDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. ocatalano@mgh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7733-4138
Harvard University · USEssen University Hospital · DEHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro · ESTel Aviv University · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe primary aim of the present study was to evaluate if PET/MR induced management changes versus standard of care imaging (SCI) in treated colorectal cancer patients. The secondary aim was to assess the staging performance of PET/MR and of SCI versus the final oncologic stage.

methodsTreated CRC patients who underwent PET/MR with

resultsA total of 39 patients who underwent 42 PET/MR studies were included, mean age 56.7 years (range 39-75 years), 26 males, and 13 females. PET/MR changed clinical management 15/42 times (35.7%, standard error ± 7.4%); these 15 changes in management were due to upstaging in 9/42 (21.5%) and downstaging in 6/42 (14.2%). The differences in management prompted by SCI versus PET/MR were statistically significant, and PET/MR outperformed SCI (P value < 0.001; odds ratio = 2.8). In relation to the secondary outcome, PET/MR outperformed the SCI in accuracy of oncologic staging (P value = 0.016; odds ratio = 4.6).

conclusionsPET/MR is a promising imaging tool in the evaluation of treated CRC and might change the management in these patients. However, multicenter prospective studies with larger patient samples are required in order to confirm these preliminary results.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyAdultAgedColorectal NeoplasmsElectronic Health RecordsFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMaleMiddle AgedMultimodal ImagingNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeFluorodeoxyglucose F18Colorectal cancerFDGManagement changesPET/MR

Identifiers

PMID31359108
OpenAlexW2965393245

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.