Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32065282›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Shortening the acquisition time of whole-body MRI: 3D T1 gradient echo Dixon vs fast spin echo for metastatic screening in prostate cancer.

Frédéric E Lecouvet, Vassiliki Pasoglou, Sandy Van Nieuwenhove, Thomas Van Haver, Quentin de Broqueville, Vincent Denolin, Perrine Triqueneaux, Bertrand Tombal, Nicolas Michoux

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Evaluation of MRI technologies for surgical spine planning and navigation.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Comparison ofCancers · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Frédéric E LecouvetDepartment of Radiology an Medical Imaging, Centre du Cancer and Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Avenue Hippocrate 10/2942, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium. frederic.lecouvet@uclouvain.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3568-3254
Vassiliki PasoglouDepartment of Radiology an Medical Imaging, Centre du Cancer and Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Avenue Hippocrate 10/2942, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Sandy Van NieuwenhoveDepartment of Radiology an Medical Imaging, Centre du Cancer and Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Avenue Hippocrate 10/2942, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Thomas Van HaverDepartment of Radiology an Medical Imaging, Centre du Cancer and Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Avenue Hippocrate 10/2942, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Quentin de BroquevilleDepartment of Radiology an Medical Imaging, Centre du Cancer and Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Avenue Hippocrate 10/2942, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Vincent DenolinPhilips Medical Systems International BV, Veenpluis 4-6, 5684 PC, Best, The Netherlands.
Perrine TriqueneauxDepartment of Radiology an Medical Imaging, Centre du Cancer and Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Avenue Hippocrate 10/2942, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Bertrand TombalDepartment of Radiology an Medical Imaging, Centre du Cancer and Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Avenue Hippocrate 10/2942, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Nicolas MichouxDepartment of Radiology an Medical Imaging, Centre du Cancer and Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Avenue Hippocrate 10/2942, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BEPhilips (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare 3D T1-weighted fast spin echo (FSE) and 3D T1-weighted gradient echo (GE) mDixon as morphologic sequences to complement diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for the metastatic screening in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty PCa patients at high risk of metastases prospectively underwent both a 3D T1 FSE (14 min) and a rapid 3D T1 GE

resultsIn bone and lymph nodes (per-region analysis), reproducibility was at least good for all sequences/readers, except for nodes in the common iliac/inguinal regions. In bone (per-organ analysis), Acc of FSE was superior to that of mDixon (difference + 4%, p < 0.0083). In nodes (per-organ analysis), Acc of Fat was superior to that of other sequences (difference + 4% to + 6% depending on reader, p < 0.0083). In the per-patient analysis, Acc of FSE was superior to that of mDixon (difference + 4% to + 6% depending on sequence, p < 0.0083). Fat images had higher CRR compared with FSE in the thoracic spine, the bony pelvis and lymph node metastases (p < 0.025).

conclusion3D T1 GE KEY POINTS: • The replacement of 3D T1 FSE by the 3D T1 GE mDixon as morphologic sequence to complement DWI drastically reduces the acquisition time of WB-MRI studies. • The 3D T1 GE mDixon sequence offers similar reproducibility of image readings compared with that of the 3D T1 FSE. • Differences in diagnostic accuracy are limited (+ 4%/+ 6% in favor of mDixon to detect node metastases; + 4%/+ 6% in favor of FSE to detect bone metastases/metastatic disease in a patient).

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingEarly Detection of CancerHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsWhole Body ImagingBonesMagnetic resonance imagingNeoplasm metastasisProstateWhole-body imaging

Identifiers

PMID32065282
OpenAlexW3007322732

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.