SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
FDG-PET/MRI in colorectal cancer care: an updated systematic review.
Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of [Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of [Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- A study on screening of postoperative chemotherapy beneficial populations in stage II colorectal cancer based on diffusion weighted imaging andJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- [Endocrine journal · 2026Review
- MRI's evolving role in rectal cancer in the era of personalized medicine.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Clinical utility and future directions of FDG-PET in rectal cancer management.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Review
- Theranostics in the management of colorectal cancer.Discover nano · 2025Review
- Standard of practice imaging vs. PET/MR: a comparative prospective study in rectal cancer staging.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- State of the art of PET/MRI for rectal cancer assessment.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSince its introduction in 2011, FDG-PET/MRI has been advocated as a useful adjunct in colorectal cancer care. However, gaps and limitations in current research remain. This systematic review aims to review the current literature to quantify the utility of FDG-PET/MRI in colorectal cancer care.
methodsAn up-to-date review was performed on the available literature between 2000 and 2023 on PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, databases. All studies reporting on the use of FDG-PET/MRI in colorectal cancer care were analyzed. The main outcome measures were accuracy in initial staging, restaging, and detection of metastatic disease in both rectal as well as colon cancers. The secondary outcome was comparing the performance of FDG-PET/MRI versus Standard of Care Imaging (SCI). Finally, the clinical significance of FDG-PET/MRI was measured in the change in management resulting from imaging findings.
resultsA total of 22 observational studies were included, accounting for 988 patients. When individually compared to current Standard of Care Imaging (SCI)-MRI pelvis for rectal cancer and thoraco-abdominal contrast CT, PET/MRI proved superior in terms of distant metastatic disease detection. This led to as much as 21.0% change in management. However, the technological limitations of PET/MRI were once again highlighted, suggesting SCI should retain its place as first-line imaging.
conclusionFDG-PET/MRI appears to be a promising adjunct in staging and restaging of colorectal cancer in carefully selected patients.
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.