Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33849649›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2021

Validation of

Björg Jónsdóttir, Montserrat Alemany Ripoll, Antonina Bergman, Ilvars Silins, Inger Sundström Poromaa, Håkan Ahlström, Karin Stålberg

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Björg Jónsdóttir *Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden. bjorg.jonsdottir@kbh.uu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8962-4351
Montserrat Alemany Ripoll *Department of Surgical Sciences, Section of Radiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Antonina BergmanDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Section of Radiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ilvars SilinsDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden.
Inger Sundström PoromaaDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden.
Håkan Ahlström *Department of Surgical Sciences, Section of Radiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Karin Stålberg *Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden.
Uppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis is difficult to estimate preoperatively, but a valid measure would be important in identifying operable patients. The present study set out to validate the usefulness of integrated

methodsWhole-body PET/MRI was performed on 34 patients with presumed carcinomatosis of gynaecological origin, all scheduled for surgery. Two radiologists evaluated the peritoneal cancer index (PCI) on PET/MRI and DW-MRI scans in consensus. The surgeon estimated PCI intraoperatively, which was used as the gold standard.

resultsMedian total PCI for PET/MRI (21.5) was closer to surgical PCI (24.5) (p = 0.6), than DW-MRI (median PCI 20.0, p = 0.007). However, both methods were highly correlated with the surgical PCI (PET/MRI: β = 0.94 p < 0.01, DW-MRI: β = 0.86, p < 0.01). PET/MRI was more accurate (p = 0.3) than DW-MRI (p = 0.001) when evaluating patients at primary diagnosis but no difference was noted in patients treated with chemotherapy. PET/MRI was superior in evaluating high tumour burden in inoperable patients. In the small bowel regions, there was a tendency of higher sensitivity but lower specificity in PET/MRI compared to DW-MRI.

conclusionsOur results suggest that FDG PET/MRI is superior to DW-MRI in estimating total spread of carcinomatosis in gynaecological cancer. Further, the greatest advantage of PET/MRI seems to be in patients at primary diagnosis and with high tumour burden, which suggest that it could be a useful tool when deciding about operability in gynaecological cancer.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCarcinomaDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsPeritoneal NeoplasmsPilot ProjectsPositron-Emission TomographyReproducibility of ResultsSurvival AnalysisTomography, X-Ray ComputedFluorodeoxyglucose F18CarcinomatosisDW-MRIOvarian cancerPeritoneal cancer index (PCI)PET/MRI

Identifiers

PMID33849649
PMCPMC8042953
OpenAlexW3153345483

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.