ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2024
Prospective comparison of positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance and PET/computed tomography dosimetry in hepatic malignant neoplastic disease after
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Instrumentation Digital Twins in PET and SPECT Imaging: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Directions.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Another hammer, but we need a wrench, and a screwdriver-positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging represents another tool for post-delivery 90Y dosimetry, but what are we still missing?Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: In this single-institution study, 18 patients (20 treatment sessions) with a primary or metastatic hepatic malignancy underwent both PET/MR and PET/CT after Results: PET/MR underestimated tumor and liver absorbed doses when compared to PET/CT by -3.7% (P=0.042) and -5.8% (P=0.029), respectively. A coverage probability plot demonstrated that 80% and 90% of tumor dose measurements fell within intermodality differences of 11% and 18%, respectively. PET/MR underestimated tumor dose at both low (<1 GBq) and high (>3 GBq) injected activity levels (P<0.001) by -22.3 [standard deviation (SD) =13.5] and -24.3 (SD =18.7), respectively. Conclusions: Although PET/MR significantly underestimated the absorbed dose when compared to PET/CT, the intermodality agreement was high and the degree of underestimation was better than previously reported. Intermodality differences were more pronounced at low and high injected doses. Additional studies are required to assess the clinical implications of these findings.
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.