The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Whole-Body MR Imaging for Detection of Bone Metastases in Children and Young Adults: Comparison with Skeletal Scintigraphy and FDG PET
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MR imaging, skeletal scintigraphy, and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) for the detection of bone metastases in children. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine children and young adults who were 2--19 years old and who had Ewing's sarcoma, osteosarcoma, lymphoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, melanoma, and Langerhans' cell histiocytosis underwent whole-body spin-echo MR imaging, skeletal scintigraphy, and FDG PET for the initial staging of bone marrow metastases. The number and location of bone and bone marrow lesions diagnosed with each imaging modality were correlated with biopsy and clinical follow-up as the standard of reference. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients exhibited 51 bone metastases. Sensitivities for the detection of bone metastases were 90% for FDG PET, 82% for whole-body MR imaging, and 71% for skeletal scintigraphy; these data were significantly different (p < 0.05). False-negative lesions were different for the three imaging modalities, mainly depending on lesion location. Most false-positive lesions were diagnosed using FDG PET. CONCLUSION: Whole-body MR imaging has a higher sensitivity than skeletal scintigraphy for the detection of bone marrow metastases but a lower sensitivity than FDG PET.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ricci, C., Cova, M., Kang, Y. S., Yang, A., Rahmouni, A., Scott, W. W., & Zerhouni, E. A. (1990) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.177.1.2399343 · Cited by 417
Red-yellow marrow conversion: Its effect on the location of some solitary bone lesions
Kricun, M. E. (1985) · Skeletal Radiology · doi:10.1007/bf00361188 · Cited by 407
Red and yellow marrow in the femur: age-related changes in appearance at MR imaging.
Moore, S. G., & Dawson, K. L. (1990) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.175.1.2315484 · Cited by 332
Whole-body FDG-PET imaging for staging of Hodgkin's disease and lymphoma.
Hoh, C. K., Glaspy, J. A., Rosen, P., Dahlbom, M. L., Lee, S. J., Kunkel, L., Hawkin, R. A., Maddahi, J., & Phelps, M. E. (1997) · PubMed · Cited by 260
Utech, C. I., Young, C. S., & Winter, P. F. (1996) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf01249621 · Cited by 165
Bender, H., Kirst, J., PALMEDO, H., Schomburg, A., Wagner, U. A. G., Ruhlmann, J., & Hj, B. (1997) · PubMed · Cited by 119
Bone marrow: ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide for MR imaging.
Senéterre, E., Weissleder, R., Jaramillo, D., Reimer, P., Lee, A. S., Brady, T. J., & WITTENBERG, J. (1991) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.179.2.2014305 · Cited by 109
Bone marrow imaging using STIR at 0.5 and 1.5 T
Jones, K. M., Unger, E., Granstrom, P., Seeger, J. F., Carmody, R. F., & Yoshino, M. T. (1992) · Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1016/0730-725x(92)90477-h · Cited by 77
Detection of malignancies with SPECT versus PET, with 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose.
Martin, W. H., Delbeke, D., Patton, J. A., & Sandler, M. P. (1996) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.198.1.8539384 · Cited by 62
Daldrup-Link, H. E., Link, T. M., Blasius, S., Strozyk, A., K�nemann, S., J�rgens, H., & Rummeny, E. J. (1999) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · Cited by 53
Self-citation
Cited by
Bastiaannet, E., Groen, H., Jager, P. L., Cobben, D. C. P., van der Graaf, W. T. A., Vaalburg, W., & Hoekstra, H. J. (2004) · Cancer Treatment Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2003.07.004 · Cited by 294
Murphey, M. D., Senchak, L. T., Mambalam, P. K., Logie, C. I., Klassen-Fischer, M. K., & Kransdorf, M. J. (2013) · RadioGraphics · doi:10.1148/rg.333135005 · Cited by 293
Schäfer, J. F., Gatidis, S., Schmidt, H., Gückel, B., Bezrukov, I., Pfannenberg, C. A., Reimold, M., Ebinger, M., Fuchs, J., Claussen, C. D., et al. (2014) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.14131732 · Cited by 215
Stanborough, R., Demertzis, J. L., Wessell, D. E., Lenchik, L., Ahlawat, S., Baker, J. C., Banks, J., Caracciolo, J. T., Garner, H. W., Hentz, C., et al. (2022) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2022.09.015 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Daldrup-Link, H. E., Franzius, C., Link, T. M., Laukamp, D., Sciuk, J., Jürgens, H., Schober, O., & Rummeny, E. J.
- Venue
- American Journal of Roentgenology
- Publisher
- American Roentgen Ray Society
- Published
- 2001-07
- Volume
- 177
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 229-236
- ISSN
- 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 0361-803X
- 1546-3141
- OpenAlex
- W1844874351
- Cited by
- 444
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 11.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Whole-Body MR Imaging for Detection of Bone Metastases in Children and Young Adults: Comparison with Skeletal Scintigraphy and FDG PET. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.177.1.1770229
- The paper
- Daldrup-Link, H. E., Franzius, C., Link, T. M., Laukamp, D., Sciuk, J., Jürgens, H., Schober, O., & Rummeny, E. J. (2001). Whole-Body MR Imaging for Detection of Bone Metastases in Children and Young Adults: Comparison with Skeletal Scintigraphy and FDG PET. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.177.1.1770229
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
