BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Cited by in F6Publishing
For: Basha MAA, Hamed MAG, Refaat R, AlAzzazy MZ, Bessar MA, Mohamed EM, Ahmed AF, Tantawy HF, Altaher KM, Obaya AA, Afifi AHM. Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI before and early after treatment of multiple myeloma: a prospective comparative study. Jpn J Radiol 2018;36:382-93. [PMID: 29671193 DOI: 10.1007/s11604-018-0738-z] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
Number Citing Articles
1 Lecouvet FE, Vekemans MC, Van Den Berghe T, Verstraete K, Kirchgesner T, Acid S, Malghem J, Wuts J, Hillengass J, Vandecaveye V, Jamar F, Gheysens O, Vande Berg BC. Imaging of treatment response and minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: state of the art WB-MRI and PET/CT. Skeletal Radiol 2021. [PMID: 34363522 DOI: 10.1007/s00256-021-03841-5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
2 Barwick T, Bretsztajn L, Wallitt K, Amiras D, Rockall A, Messiou C. Imaging in myeloma with focus on advanced imaging techniques. Br J Radiol 2019;92:20180768. [PMID: 30604631 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20180768] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
3 Lecouvet FE, Boyadzhiev D, Collette L, Berckmans M, Michoux N, Triqueneaux P, Pasoglou V, Jamar F, Vekemans MC. MRI versus 18F-FDG-PET/CT for detecting bone marrow involvement in multiple myeloma: diagnostic performance and clinical relevance. Eur Radiol 2020;30:1927-37. [PMID: 31844960 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06469-1] [Cited by in Crossref: 14] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
4 Ferrarazzo G, Chiola S, Capitanio S, Donegani MI, Miceli A, Raffa S, Tagliafico AS, Morbelli S, Bauckneht M. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Imaging of Multiple Myeloma in a Post-Treatment Setting. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021;11:230. [PMID: 33546455 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11020230] [Reference Citation Analysis]
5 Shapiro YN, O'Donnell EK. Oncologist perspective: role of imaging in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2021. [PMID: 34272993 DOI: 10.1007/s00256-021-03856-y] [Reference Citation Analysis]
6 Westerland O, Amlani A, Kelly-Morland C, Fraczek M, Bailey K, Gleeson M, El-Najjar I, Streetly M, Bassett P, Cook GJR, Goh V; Myeloma Imaging Research Group at Guy’s & St Thomas’ Hospital, London and King’s College London. Comparison of the diagnostic performance and impact on management of 18F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI in multiple myeloma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021;48:2558-65. [PMID: 33469686 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-05182-2] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
7 Park HY, Kim KW, Yoon MA, Lee MH, Chae EJ, Lee JH, Chung HW, Yoon DH. Role of whole-body MRI for treatment response assessment in multiple myeloma: comparison between clinical response and imaging response. Cancer Imaging 2020;20:14. [PMID: 32000858 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-020-0293-6] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
8 Takahashi MES, Mosci C, Souza EM, Brunetto SQ, Etchebehere E, Santos AO, Camacho MR, Miranda E, Lima MCL, Amorim BJ, de Souza C, Pericole FV, Lorand-Metze I, Ramos CD. Proposal for a Quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT Metabolic Parameter to Assess the Intensity of Bone Involvement in Multiple Myeloma. Sci Rep 2019;9:16429. [PMID: 31712729 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-52740-2] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
9 Burns R, Mulé S, Blanc-Durand P, Tofighi M, Belhadj K, Zerbib P, Le Bras F, Baranes L, Haioun C, Itti E, Luciani A. Optimization of whole-body 2-[18F]FDG-PET/MRI imaging protocol for the initial staging of patients with myeloma. Eur Radiol 2021. [PMID: 34842956 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08388-6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
10 Zhong X, Diao W, Zhao C, Jia Z. Fluorodeoxyglucose-avid focal lesions and extramedullary disease on 18F-FDG PET/computed tomography predict the outcomes of newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma patients. Nucl Med Commun 2020;41:950-8. [PMID: 32796484 DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001242] [Reference Citation Analysis]
11 Alonso R, Cedena MT, Gómez-Grande A, Ríos R, Moraleda JM, Cabañas V, Moreno MJ, López-Jiménez J, Martín F, Sanz A, Valeri A, Jiménez A, Sánchez R, Lahuerta JJ, Martínez-López J. Imaging and bone marrow assessments improve minimal residual disease prediction in multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol 2019;94:853-61. [PMID: 31074033 DOI: 10.1002/ajh.25507] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
12 Yokoyama K, Tsuchiya J, Tateishi U. Comparison of [18F]FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021;11:706. [PMID: 33920809 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11040706] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]