Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32517801›Full record

ReviewCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2020

What scans we will read: imaging instrumentation trends in clinical oncology.

Thomas Beyer, Luc Bidaut, John Dickson, Marc Kachelriess, Fabian Kiessling, Rainer Leitgeb, Jingfei Ma, Lalith Kumar Shiyam Sundar, Benjamin Theek, Osama Mawlawi

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. EANM practice guideline for quantitative SPECT-CT.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023
    Guideline
  2. NIR-Excited Imaging of Cervical Cancer Cells Using Biocompatible LaFLuminescence : the journal of biological and chemical luminescence · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Bacteria-Based Living Probes: Preparation and the Applications in Bioimaging and Diagnosis.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Thomas BeyerQIMP Team, Centre for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20/4L, 1090, Vienna, Austria. thomas.beyer@meduniwien.ac.at.
Luc BidautCollege of Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
John DicksonInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Marc KachelriessDivision of X-ray imaging and CT, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, DE, Germany.
Fabian KiesslingInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, University Clinic and Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 20, 52074, Aachen, DE, Germany.
Rainer LeitgebCentre for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, AT, Austria.
Jingfei MaDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Lalith Kumar Shiyam SundarQIMP Team, Centre for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20/4L, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Benjamin TheekInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, University Clinic and Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 20, 52074, Aachen, DE, Germany.
Osama MawlawiDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Medical University of Vienna · ATThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USFraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DERWTH Aachen University · DEUniversity College Hospital · GBUniversity of Lincoln · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oncological diseases account for a significant portion of the burden on public healthcare systems with associated costs driven primarily by complex and long-lasting therapies. Through the visualization of patient-specific morphology and functional-molecular pathways, cancerous tissue can be detected and characterized non-invasively, so as to provide referring oncologists with essential information to support therapy management decisions. Following the onset of stand-alone anatomical and functional imaging, we witness a push towards integrating molecular image information through various methods, including anato-metabolic imaging (e.g., PET/CT), advanced MRI, optical or ultrasound imaging.This perspective paper highlights a number of key technological and methodological advances in imaging instrumentation related to anatomical, functional, molecular medicine and hybrid imaging, that is understood as the hardware-based combination of complementary anatomical and molecular imaging. These include novel detector technologies for ionizing radiation used in CT and nuclear medicine imaging, and novel system developments in MRI and optical as well as opto-acoustic imaging. We will also highlight new data processing methods for improved non-invasive tissue characterization. Following a general introduction to the role of imaging in oncology patient management we introduce imaging methods with well-defined clinical applications and potential for clinical translation. For each modality, we report first on the status quo and, then point to perceived technological and methodological advances in a subsequent status go section. Considering the breadth and dynamics of these developments, this perspective ends with a critical reflection on where the authors, with the majority of them being imaging experts with a background in physics and engineering, believe imaging methods will be in a few years from now.Overall, methodological and technological medical imaging advances are geared towards increased image contrast, the derivation of reproducible quantitative parameters, an increase in volume sensitivity and a reduction in overall examination time. To ensure full translation to the clinic, this progress in technologies and instrumentation is complemented by advances in relevant acquisition and image-processing protocols and improved data analysis. To this end, we should accept diagnostic images as "data", and - through the wider adoption of advanced analysis, including machine learning approaches and a "big data" concept - move to the next stage of non-invasive tumour phenotyping. The scans we will be reading in 10 years from now will likely be composed of highly diverse multi-dimensional data from multiple sources, which mandate the use of advanced and interactive visualization and analysis platforms powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) for real-time data handling by cross-specialty clinical experts with a domain knowledge that will need to go beyond that of plain imaging.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMedical OncologyMultimodal ImagingNeoplasmsRadionuclide ImagingUltrasonographyCTHybrid imagingInstrumentationMachine learningMRIOncology imagingOpticalSonographySPECTUS

Identifiers

PMID32517801
PMCPMC7285725
OpenAlexW3032911928

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.