ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparative study of total-body PET and PET/MR in the diagnosis of liver metastases.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of partial volume correction on radiomics reproducibility in theranostic SPECT/CT imaging.Medical physics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the diagnostic differences between total-body PET/CT (positron emission tomography/computed tomography) and PET/MR (positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance) in detecting liver metastases. Methods: The study analyzed data from patients with malignancies who underwent both conventional total-body PET/CT and liver PET/MR imaging between June 2020 and December 2020. A total of 20 patients with confirmed liver metastases were included, 9 of whom also underwent 2-hour delayed imaging of the liver. Paired t-tests were used to compare the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and tissue-to-background ratio (T/B) between PET/MR and conventional total-body PET/CT. Wilcoxon non-parametric tests were used to compare the standardized uptake value maximum (SUVmax) between the two imaging modalities. The McNemar test was employed to assess diagnostic performance differences between PET/MR and conventional total-body PET/CT, as well as between PET/MR and 2-hour delayed total-body PET/CT. Results: A total of 20 patients with confirmed liver metastases were included, with 39 suspicious lesions identified, and 27 lesions confirmed as liver metastases through biopsy or follow-up. The sensitivity of total-body PET/CT was 66.7% (18/27), while PET/MR had a sensitivity of 96.3% (26/27). The specificity of total-body PET/CT was 83.3% (10/12), and PET/MR had a specificity of 91.7% (11/12). The McNemar test revealed a significant difference in diagnostic performance between the two modalities, with PET/MR outperforming conventional total-body PET/CT (p=0.016). In 9 patients who underwent 2-hour delayed total-body PET/CT, 10 suspicious lesions were identified, 8 of which were confirmed as liver metastases. The sensitivity of delayed total-body PET/CT was 75% (6/8), and PET/MR had a sensitivity of 87.5% (7/8). Both modalities had a specificity of 50% (1/2). The McNemar test for delayed imaging showed no statistically significant difference (p=1). Wilcoxon non-parametric testing showed that the SUVmax of total-body PET/CT was significantly higher than that of PET/MR (Z=-2.355, p=0.019). Paired t-tests indicated no significant differences in SNR (t=-1.565, p=0.156) and T/B ratio (t=-1.689, p=0.115) between the two modalities. Conclusion: Total-body PET/CT demonstrated higher detector sensitivity compared to PET/MR. However, PET/MR showed superior diagnostic performance for detecting liver metastases. The delayed 2-hour PET/CT imaging could partially compensate for the lower diagnostic efficiency of conventional PET/CT compared to PET/MR.
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.