SynthesisBMC medical imaging2025
Staging of esophageal cancer using PET/MRI: a systematic review with head-to-head comparison.
Synthesis in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of PET/CT imaging on target volume delineation and radiotherapy planning in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- A palmitoylation signature for prognosis immune infiltration and drug sensitivity in esophageal carcinoma.iScience · 2026Article
- Integration of CT radiomics and machine learning for preoperative T staging of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Updated evidence on the accuracy ofQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the staging performance of positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) for confirmed esophageal cancer based on the TNM classification system as well as compare it to other alternative modalities (e.g., endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), MRI, and PET/CT) in a full head-to-head manner.
methodsProtocol was pre-registered a priori at ( http://osf.io/6qj5m/ ). We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies until September 10, 2024. The risk of bias was assessed using Modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative (QUADAS-C). The classification performance of PET/MRI in T, N, and M staging of esophageal cancer and resectability status were evaluated and compared to other relative modalities. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was used for certainty evaluation.
resultsNine studies were included with 245 esophageal cancer patients. For T, N, and M staging, PET/MRI showed 9.1%, 2.0%, and 10.7% upstaging than the histopathological evaluation while these numbers were 19.4%, 12.4%, and 5.3% for downstaging. For direct comparison with PET/CT, PET/MRI showed 0.7% and 5.6% less downstaging and upstaging for N staging and 2.5% and 4.0% for M staging. As for predicting resectability status, pre-ADCmean and post-ADCmean were promising, unlike other parameters (i.e., ΔADCmean, pre-SUVmax, post-SUVmax, and ΔSUVmax).
conclusionWith protocol adjustments, PET/MRI might be utilized in the future for preoperative staging of esophageal cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: N/A.
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.