Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33312679›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2020

Dynamic

Maria R Ponisio, Jonathan E McConathy, Sonika M Dahiya, Michelle M Miller-Thomas, Keith M Rich, Amber Salter, Qing Wang, Pamela J LaMontagne, Gloria J Guzmán Pérez-Carrillo, Tammie L S Benzinger

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Case Report:Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  4. Complex Diagnostic Challenges in Glioblastoma: The Role ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  5. Recent Update on PET/CT Radiotracers for Imaging Cerebral Glioma.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Multi-threshold volumetricNeuro-oncology advances
    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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Maria R PonisioMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0002-4528-8971
Jonathan E McConathyDepartment of Radiology, Division of Molecular Imaging and Therapeutics, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Sonika M DahiyaDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0002-5585-0964
Michelle M Miller-ThomasMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Keith M RichDepartment of Neurosurgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Amber SalterDepartment of Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Qing WangMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Pamela J LaMontagneMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Gloria J Guzmán Pérez-CarrilloMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Tammie L S BenzingerMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Mallinckrodt (United States) · USWashington University in St. Louis · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMRI alone has limited accuracy for delineating tumor margins and poorly predicts the aggressiveness of gliomas, especially when tumors do not enhance. This study evaluated simultaneous 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[18F]fluoro-L-phenylalanine (FDOPA)-PET/MRI to define tumor volumes compared to MRI alone more accurately, assessed its role in patient management, and correlated PET findings with histopathology.

methodsTen patients with known or suspected gliomas underwent standard of care surgical resection and/or stereotactic biopsy. FDOPA-PET/MRI was performed prior to surgery, allowing for precise co-registration of PET, MR, and biopsies. The biopsy sites were modeled as 5-mm spheres, and the local FDOPA uptake at each site was determined. Correlations were performed between measures of tumor histopathology, and static and dynamic PET values: standardized uptake values (SUVs), tumor to brain ratios, metabolic tumor volumes, and tracer kinetics at volumes of interest (VOIs) and biopsy sites.

resultsTumor FDOPA-PET uptake was visualized in 8 patients. In 2 patients, tracer uptake was similar to normal brain reference with no histological findings of malignancy. Eight biopsy sites confirmed for glioma had FDOPA uptake without T1 contrast enhancement. The PET parameters were highly correlated only with the cell proliferation marker, Ki-67 (SUV

conclusionsSimultaneous FDOPA-PET/MRI allowed for more accurate visualization and delineation of gliomas, enabling more appropriate patient management and simplified validation of PET findings with histopathology.

Indexed as

adult gliomasdynamic FDOPA-PETglioma delineationPET/MRIstereotactic biopsy

Identifiers

PMID33312679
PMCPMC7716181
OpenAlexW3047735427

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.