PURPOSE: To compare whole-body magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with conventional imaging for detection of distant metastases in pediatric patients with common malignant tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, multicenter prospective cohort study included 188 patients (109 male, 79 female; mean age, 10.2 years; range, < 1 to 21 years) with newly diagnosed lymphoma, neuroblastoma, or soft-tissue sarcoma. Informed consent was obtained and all patients underwent noncontrast material-enhanced whole-body MR imaging and standard-practice conventional imaging. All images were reviewed centrally by 10 pairs of readers. An independent panel verified the presence or absence of distant metastases. Detection of metastasis with whole-body MR and conventional imaging was quantified by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The effects of tumor subtype, patient age, and distant skeletal and pulmonary disease on diagnostic accuracy were also analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 134 eligible patients, 66 (33 positive and 33 negative for metastasis) were selected for image review and analysis. Whole-body MR imaging did not meet the noninferiority criterion for accuracy when compared with conventional imaging for detection of metastasis (difference between average AUCs was -0.03 [95% confidence interval: -0.10, 0.04]); however, the average AUC for solid tumors was significantly higher than that for lymphomas (P = .006). More skeletal metastases were detected by using whole-body MR imaging than by using conventional imaging (P = .03), but fewer lung metastases were detected (P < .001). Patient age did not affect accuracy. CONCLUSION: The noninferior accuracy for diagnosis of distant metastasis in patients with common pediatric tumors was not established for the use of whole-body MR imaging compared with conventional methods. However, improved accuracy was seen with whole-body MR imaging in patients with nonlymphomatous tumors.
PURPOSE: To compare whole-body magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with conventional imaging for detection of distant metastases in pediatric patients with common malignant tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, multicenter prospective cohort study included 188 patients (109 male, 79 female; mean age, 10.2 years; range, < 1 to 21 years) with newly diagnosed lymphoma, neuroblastoma, or soft-tissue sarcoma. Informed consent was obtained and all patients underwent noncontrast material-enhanced whole-body MR imaging and standard-practice conventional imaging. All images were reviewed centrally by 10 pairs of readers. An independent panel verified the presence or absence of distant metastases. Detection of metastasis with whole-body MR and conventional imaging was quantified by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The effects of tumor subtype, patient age, and distant skeletal and pulmonary disease on diagnostic accuracy were also analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 134 eligible patients, 66 (33 positive and 33 negative for metastasis) were selected for image review and analysis. Whole-body MR imaging did not meet the noninferiority criterion for accuracy when compared with conventional imaging for detection of metastasis (difference between average AUCs was -0.03 [95% confidence interval: -0.10, 0.04]); however, the average AUC for solid tumors was significantly higher than that for lymphomas (P = .006). More skeletal metastases were detected by using whole-body MR imaging than by using conventional imaging (P = .03), but fewer lung metastases were detected (P < .001). Patient age did not affect accuracy. CONCLUSION: The noninferior accuracy for diagnosis of distant metastasis in patients with common pediatric tumors was not established for the use of whole-body MR imaging compared with conventional methods. However, improved accuracy was seen with whole-body MR imaging in patients with nonlymphomatous tumors.
Authors: Thomas C Lauenstein; Susanne C Goehde; Christoph U Herborn; Wiebke Treder; Stefan G Ruehm; Jörg F Debatin; Jörg Barkhausen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: R Walker; P Kessar; R Blanchard; M Dimasi; K Harper; V DeCarvalho; E K Yucel; L Patriquin; S Eustace Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: James B Nachman; Richard Sposto; Philip Herzog; Gerald S Gilchrist; Suzanne L Wolden; John Thomson; Marshall E Kadin; Paul Pattengale; P Charlton Davis; Raymond J Hutchinson; Keith White Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas C Lauenstein; Lutz S Freudenberg; Susanne C Goehde; Stefan G Ruehm; Mathias Goyen; Silke Bosk; Jörg F Debatin; Jörg Barkhausen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-03-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: John C Breneman; Elizabeth Lyden; Alberto S Pappo; Michael P Link; James R Anderson; David M Parham; Stephen J Qualman; Moody D Wharam; Sarah S Donaldson; Harold M Maurer; William H Meyer; K Scott Baker; Charles N Paidas; William M Crist Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stuart A Taylor; Susan Mallett; Anne Miles; Stephen Morris; Laura Quinn; Caroline S Clarke; Sandy Beare; John Bridgewater; Vicky Goh; Sam Janes; Dow-Mu Koh; Alison Morton; Neal Navani; Alfred Oliver; Anwar Padhani; Shonit Punwani; Andrea Rockall; Steve Halligan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Gitta Bleeker; Godelieve A M Tytgat; Judit A Adam; Huib N Caron; Leontien C M Kremer; Lotty Hooft; Elvira C van Dalen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-09-29