ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2022
Comparison of nodal staging between CT, MRI, and [
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Joint EANM-SNMMI guideline on the role of 2-[European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Guideline
- Uncertainties and controversies in axillary management of patients with breast cancer.Cancer treatment reviews · 2023Pooled it
- AlEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Clinical PET/MR.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026Review
- Multimodal deep learning ensemble framework for skin cancer detection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Iodine Seed-Marking Protocol for Response-Guided Axillary Treatment After Systemic Therapy for Node-Positive Breast Cancer.JAMA oncology · 2025Article
- The Diagnostic and Prognostic Value ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Head-to-head comparison of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Application ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparison of [Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- The Predictive Role of Radiomics in Breast Cancer Patients Imaged by [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- [Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Article
- Prediction of therapy response of breast cancer patients with machine learning based on clinical data and imaging data derived from breast [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- The use of PET/MRI in radiotherapy.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- Imaging Molecular Targets and Metabolic Pathways in Breast Cancer for Improved Clinical Management: Current Practice and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- PET/MRI and Novel Targets for Breast Cancer.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- The current role of nuclear medicine in breast cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Conventional Imaging, MRI andCancers · 2023Article
- Breast PET/MRI Hybrid Imaging and Targeted Tracers.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare CT, MRI, and [ MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred eighty-two patients (mean age 52.7 ± 11.9 years) were included in this prospective double-center study. Patients underwent dedicated contrast-enhanced chest/abdomen/pelvis computed tomography (CT) and whole-body ([
resultsOn a patient-based analysis, PET/MRI correctly detected significantly more nodal positive patients than MRI (p < 0.0001) and CT (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference was seen between CT and MRI. PET/MRI detected 193 lesions in 75 patients (41.2%), while MRI detected 123 lesions in 56 patients (30.8%) and CT detected 104 lesions in 50 patients, respectively. Differences were statistically significant on a lesion-based analysis (PET/MRI vs. MRI, p < 0.0001; PET/MRI vs. CT, p < 0.0001; MRI vs. CT, p = 0.015). Subgroup analysis for different lymph node stations showed that PET/MRI detected significantly more lymph node metastases than MRI and CT in each location (axillary levels I-III, supraclavicular, mammary internal chain). MRI was superior to CT only in axillary level I (p = 0.0291).
conclusion[
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.