ArticleScientific reports2020
Diagnostic Accuracy and Confidence of [18F] FDG PET/MRI in comparison with PET or MRI alone in Head and Neck Cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Positron Emission Tomography-Magnetic Resonance Imaging, a New Hybrid Imaging Modality for Dentomaxillofacial Malignancies-A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Confidence judgments interfere with perceptual decision making.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- PET/MR versus PET/CT for locoregional staging of oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer.Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) · 2023Article
- Added value of quantitative, multiparametric 18F-FDG PET/MRI in the locoregional staging of rectal cancer.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- PET/MR Imaging in Evaluating Treatment Failure of Head and Neck Malignancies: A Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System-Based Study.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Fractionated deep-inspiration breath-hold ZTE Compared with Free-breathing four-dimensional ZTE for detecting pulmonary nodules in oncological patients underwent PET/MRI.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Head-to-Head Comparison of NeckCancers · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The usefulness of PET/MRI in head and neck malignancy has not been fully elucidated. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and confidence of PET/MRI in comparison with PET or MRI alone. This study included 73 consecutive patients who underwent [18F] FDG PET/MRI in head and neck under the suspicion of malignancy. A neuroradiologist and a nuclear medicine specialist reviewed MRI and PET images, respectively and independently, followed by a consensus review of PET/MRI one month later. For 134 lesions, accuracy and confidence were compared among PET, MRI, and PET/MRI. For lesion base, PET/MRI had a sensitivity of 85.7%, a specificity of 89.1%, a PPV of 89.6%, a negative predictive value of 85.1%, and an accuracy of 87.3%. AUCs of PET/MRI per lesion (0.926) and per patient (0.934) for diagnosing malignancy were higher than PET (0.847 and 0.747, respectively) or MRI (0.836 and 0.798, respectively) alone (P < 0.05). More than 80% of the cases (111/134) showed diagnostic concordance between PET and MRI. PPV of PET/MRI was higher in malignant concordant cases (93.2%, 55/59) than in discordant cases (62.5%, 5/8) (p = 0.040). Confident scoring rate in malignant concordant cases was higher on PET/MRI (96.6%, 57/59) than on MRI (76.3%, 45/59) (p = 0.003). In conclusion, compared with PET or MRI alone, PET/MRI presents better diagnostic performance in accuracy and confidence for diagnosis of malignancy. PET/MRI is useful in patients with head and neck cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.