Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34869009›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2021

Bone Metastases Are Measurable: The Role of Whole-Body MRI and Positron Emission Tomography.

Daniela E Oprea-Lager, Matthijs C F Cysouw, Ronald Boellaard, Christophe M Deroose, Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei, Egesta Lopci, Luc Bidaut, Ken Herrmann, Laure S Fournier, Tobias Bäuerle and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Automatic Skeleton Segmentation in CT Images Based on U-Net.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Daniela E Oprea-LagerImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Matthijs C F CysouwDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ronald BoellaardDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Christophe M DerooseImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Lioe-Fee de Geus-OeiDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Egesta LopciNuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS - Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Luc BidautImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Ken HerrmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Laure S FournierImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Tobias BäuerleInstitute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Nandita M deSouzaImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Frederic E LecouvetImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer · BEVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLCliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BEEuropean Society of Radiology · ATFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital · ITLeiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Duisburg-Essen · DE

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metastatic tumor deposits in bone marrow elicit differential bone responses that vary with the type of malignancy. This results in either sclerotic, lytic, or mixed bone lesions, which can change in morphology due to treatment effects and/or secondary bone remodeling. Hence, morphological imaging is regarded unsuitable for response assessment of bone metastases and in the current Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors 1.1 (RECIST1.1) guideline bone metastases are deemed unmeasurable. Nevertheless, the advent of functional and molecular imaging modalities such as whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) has improved the ability for follow-up of bone metastases, regardless of their morphology. Both these modalities not only have improved sensitivity for visual detection of bone lesions, but also allow for objective measurements of bone lesion characteristics. WB-MRI provides a global assessment of skeletal metastases and for a one-step "all-organ" approach of metastatic disease. Novel MRI techniques include diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) targeting highly cellular lesions, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) for quantitative assessment of bone lesion vascularization, and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) combining anatomical and functional sequences. Recommendations for a homogenization of MRI image acquisitions and generalizable response criteria have been developed. For PET, many metabolic and molecular radiotracers are available, some targeting tumor characteristics not confined to cancer type (e.g.

Indexed as

bone metastasesmeasurableMRIPETresponse

Identifiers

PMID34869009
PMCPMC8640187
OpenAlexW3212198841

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.