ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2018
Comparison of time curves from dynamic
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Localization of primary prostate cancer: FACBC PET/CT compared with multiparametric MRI using histopathology as reference standard.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Imaging science and development in modern high-precision radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2019Article
- Imaging for radiation treatment planning and monitoring in prostate Cancer: Precision, personalization, individualization of therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeMultimodal imaging is increasingly included in the assessment of prostate cancer patients, and there is a need to study whether different techniques provide similar or complementary information. In the initial perfusion phase contrast agents and radioactive labelled tracers act as blood-pool agents and may show similar characteristics. The purpose of the current work was to compare time-activity- and time-concentration-curves (TCs) of dynamic MATERIALS AND
methodsDynamic FACBC PET and DCE MRI were performed on 22 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer within 23 days prior to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Index tumour was delineated in the images using whole mount tissue sections as reference standard. Tumour TCs from PET and MRI were compared visually and quantitatively by calculating correlation coefficients between the curves at different time points after injection.
resultsFor the first minute post injection, the mean correlation coefficient between the TCs from PET and MRI was 0.92 (range; 0.75-0.99). After the first minute, MRI showed washout while PET showed plateau kinetics.
conclusionDynamic FACBC and DCE MRI showed similar wash-in time curve characteristics. At later time points, FACBC plateaued whereas MR contrast medium washed out. In DCE MRI, the usefulness of wash-in information is well documented. Whether wash-in information from dynamic FACBC can provide added value remains to be documented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.