ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Insulinoma detection and surgery planning: a comparative study of 5.0T MRI versus 3.0T MRI and MDCT.
Article 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraindividual comparison of 3-T and 5-T gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for evaluating HCC: initial findings.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- AI-assisted compressed sensing and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for evaluating colorectal liver metastases in complex hepatic backgrounds: a prospective 5T MRI study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Quantitative assessment of renal and perirenal adipose tissue distribution at 5 T: a feasibility study.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Advances in Endocrine Tumor PET Imaging Targeting CXCR4 and GLP-1.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2025Review
- Application of AI-assisted compressed sensing in high resolution Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI during hepatobiliary phase at 5.0 T.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the ability among 5.0T MRI, 3.0T MRI and MDCT in identifying insulinomas and determining the tumor-to-duct relationship.
methodsA consecutive series of patients highly suspected of insulinomas were enrolled between October 2021 and February 2024, who underwent 5.0T MRI preoperatively, as well as 3.0T MRI or MDCT. The subjective and objective image quality, lesion-to-pancreas contrast, clarity of main pancreatic duct (MPD) and tumor-to-duct relationship at 5.0T, 3.0T MRI and MDCT were evaluated by three observers. The correlation between tumor-duct distance and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) risk was analyzed.
resultsForty patients (14 men; mean age, 46.4 ± 16.5 years) with insulinomas were included in this study. 21 of them underwent both 5.0T and 3.0T MRI; and 38 of them underwent 5.0T MRI and MDCT. The intra- and inter-observer agreement of 5.0T MRI were good to excellent. 5.0T showed significantly higher subjective and objective image quality on T1WI and DWI compared to 3.0T (p < 0.05). Lesion-to-pancreas contrast was superior across all sequences at 5.0T compared to 3.0T(p < 0.05). A head-to-head comparison of patients who received both 5.0T and 3.0T MRI demonstrated that tumor detection was superior with 5.0T MRI (5.0T: 100%; 3.0 T: 92.0%, p < 0.05). Feasibility of tumor-to-duct relationship assessment was superior at 5.0T, compared to 3.0T and MDCT (93.2%, 64.0% and 52.3%, respectively, p < 0.05). Tumor-duct distance could predict CR-POPF after enucleation surgery (areas under the ROC curve 0.79, p = 0.01).
conclusion5.0T MRI exhibits certain superiority in detecting insulinomas and assessing tumor-to-duct relationship compared to 3.0T MRI and MDCT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39514101What 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.