Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32880696›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Whole-body MRI versus an FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard for staging of paediatric Hodgkin lymphoma: a prospective multicentre study.

Suzanne Spijkers, Annemieke S Littooij, Thomas C Kwee, Nelleke Tolboom, Auke Beishuizen, Marrie C A Bruin, Sjoerd G Elias, Tim van de Brug, Goya Enríquez, Constantino Sábado and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Whole-body MRI versus an [European radiology · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

17 authors at 10 institutions in 6 countries.

Suzanne SpijkersDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht/Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. suzannespijkers@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9632-7002
Annemieke S LittooijDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht/Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Thomas C KweeMedical Imaging Center, Department of Radiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Nelleke TolboomDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht/Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Auke BeishuizenPrincess Máxima Center for Paediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marrie C A BruinPrincess Máxima Center for Paediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sjoerd G EliasJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Tim van de BrugDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Goya EnríquezInstitut de Recerca Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.
Constantino SábadoDepartment of Paediatric Oncology and Haematology, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.
Elka MillerDepartment of Medical Imaging, CHEO, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Claudio GranataDepartment of Paediatric Radiology, Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy.
Charlotte de LangeDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Intervention, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Federico VerzegnassiOncohematology Unit, Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy.
Mary-Louise C GreerDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children, Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bart de KeizerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht/Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rutger A J NievelsteinDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht/Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLIRCCS Materno Infantile Burlo Garofolo · ITPrincess Máxima Center · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLOslo University Hospital · NOUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAVall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari · ESVall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca · ES

Funding

Stichting Kinderen Kankervrij 87
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the concordance of whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) and an FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard for the initial staging in children with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL)

methodsChildren with newly diagnosed HL were included in this prospective, multicentre, international study and underwent WB-MRI and FDG-PET/CT at staging. Two radiologists and a nuclear medicine physician independently evaluated all images. Discrepancies between WB-MRI and FDG-PET/CT were assessed by an expert panel. All FDG-PET/CT errors were corrected to derive the FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard. The expert panel corrected all reader errors in the WB-MRI DWI dataset to form the intrinsic MRI data. Inter-observer agreement for WB-MRI DWI was calculated using overall agreement, specific agreements and kappa statistics. Concordance for correct classification of all disease sites and disease stage between WB-MRI (without DWI, with DWI and intrinsic WB-MRI DWI) and the reference standard was calculated as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included positive predictive value, negative predictive value and kappa statistics. Clustering within patients was accounted for using a mixed-effect logistic regression model with random intercepts and a multilevel kappa analysis.

resultsSixty-eight children were included. Inter-observer agreement between WB-MRI DWI readers was good for disease stage (κ = 0.74). WB-MRI DWI agreed with the FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard for determining disease stage in 96% of the patients versus 88% for WB-MRI without DWI. Agreement between WB-MRI DWI and the reference standard was excellent for both nodal (98%) and extra-nodal (100%) staging.

conclusionsWB-MRI DWI showed excellent agreement with the FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard. The addition of DWI to the WB-MRI protocol improved the staging agreement. KEY POINTS: • This study showed excellent agreement between WB-MRI DWI and an FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard for staging paediatric HL. • Diffusion-weighted imaging is a useful addition to WB-MRI in staging paediatric HL. • Inter-observer agreement for WB-MRI DWI was good for both nodal and extra-nodal staging and determining disease stage.

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18Hodgkin DiseaseChildDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm StagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProspective StudiesReference StandardsWhole Body ImagingFluorodeoxyglucose F18ChildDiffusion magnetic resonance imagingHodgkin diseaseNeoplasm stagingWhole-body imaging

Identifiers

PMID32880696
PMCPMC7880958
OpenAlexW3083729105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.