Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42850294›Full record

ReviewRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026

[Contrast agent strategies in elective oncological imaging].

Mirjam Gerwing, Michel Eisenblätter

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mirjam GerwingUniversitätsinstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum OWL, Universität Bielefeld Campus Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstraße 18, 32756, Detmold, Deutschland. mirjam.gerwing@klinikum-lippe.de.
Michel EisenblätterUniversitätsinstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum OWL, Universität Bielefeld Campus Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstraße 18, 32756, Detmold, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are central to staging, treatment planning and response assessment in oncology. For many tumor entities, clinical guidelines specify the recommended imaging frequency and appropriate modality; however, the practical implementation, including the applied imaging protocols, varies in clinical routine. Intravenous contrast agents are indispensable in oncological imaging for a variety of specific clinical questions, particularly for the detection and characterization of intraparenchymal lesions. In addition to the general indications for contrast administration, the selection of the optimal contrast phase for subsequent imaging is crucial. This article outlines the fundamentals of iodine-based and gadolinium-based contrast agents, their pharmacokinetics and safety aspects that should be considered in the context of a risk-benefit assessment for their use in oncological imaging. Furthermore, typical contrast phases and imaging protocols are presented as representative examples. Future developments in this field include spectral imaging and photon-counting CT, quantitative imaging and artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods as well as contrast agent-free functional MRI techniques. All of these approaches aim to achieve more precise tissue characterization, a potential reduction of radiation dose and/or contrast agent use as well as automated optimization of image acquisition and interpretation and are also discussed in this article.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceComputed tomographyMagnet resonance imagingStagingTumors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.