ArticleAnnals of hematology2022
A comparison of FDG PET/MR and PET/CT for staging, response assessment, and prognostic imaging biomarkers in lymphoma.
Article in Annals of hematology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- ESR Essentials: imaging of lymphoma-practice recommendations by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging.European radiology · 2025Guideline
- Unusual bilateral lymphadenopathy revealing Hodgkin's lymphoma: a case report.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging provides accurate staging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, but is less preferred by patients.World journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of prospective same-day 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Article
- Prognostic value of combined MTV and ADC derived from baseline FDG PET/MRI in aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma.BMC cancer · 2022Article
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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the current study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of FDG PET/MR compared to PET/CT in a patient cohort including Hodgkins lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma at baseline and response assessment. Sixty-one patients were examined with FDG PET/CT directly followed by PET/MR. Images were read by two pairs of nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists. Concordance for lymphoma involvement between PET/MR and the reference standard PET/CT was assessed at baseline and response assessment. Correlation of prognostic biomarkers Deauville score, criteria of response, SUVmax, SUVpeak, and MTV was performed between PET/MR and PET/CT. Baseline FDG PET/MR showed a sensitivity of 92.5% and a specificity 97.9% compared to the reference standard PET/CT (κ 0.91) for nodal sites. For extranodal sites, a sensitivity of 80.4% and a specificity of 99.5% were found (κ 0.84). Concordance in Ann Arbor was found in 57 of 61 patients (κ 0.92). Discrepancies were due to misclassification of region and not lesion detection. In response assessment, a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity 99.9% for all sites combined were found (κ 0.92). There was a perfect agreement on Deauville scores 4 and 5 and criteria of response between the two modalities. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for SUVmax, SUVpeak, and MTV values showed excellent reliability (ICC > 0.9). FDG PET/MR is a reliable alternative to PET/CT in this patient population, both in terms of lesion detection at baseline staging and response assessment, and for quantitative prognostic imaging biomarkers.
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.