Loading…
Accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction by contemporary multiple gated acquisition scanning in patients with cancer: comparison with cardiovascular magnetic resonance
Multiple gated acquisition scanning (MUGA) is a common imaging modality for baseline and serial assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) for cardiotoxicity risk assessment prior to, surveillance during, and surveillance after administration of potentially cardiotoxic cancer treatment....
Saved in:
| Published in: | Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance 2017-03, Vol.19 (1), p.34, Article 34 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-57cfe74131fad3d26ddadfbe493613b5ea1cc67fbffca9e7c7b086261396c9453 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-57cfe74131fad3d26ddadfbe493613b5ea1cc67fbffca9e7c7b086261396c9453 |
| container_end_page | |
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 34 |
| container_title | Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance |
| container_volume | 19 |
| creator | Huang, Hans Nijjar, Prabhjot S Misialek, Jeffrey R Blaes, Anne Derrico, Nicholas P Kazmirczak, Felipe Klem, Igor Farzaneh-Far, Afshin Shenoy, Chetan |
| description | Multiple gated acquisition scanning (MUGA) is a common imaging modality for baseline and serial assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) for cardiotoxicity risk assessment prior to, surveillance during, and surveillance after administration of potentially cardiotoxic cancer treatment. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) obtained by contemporary clinical multiple gated acquisition scans (MUGA) with reference LVEFs from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in consecutive patients with cancer.
In a cross-sectional study, we compared MUGA clinical and CMR reference LVEFs in 75 patients with cancer who had both studies within 30 days. Misclassification was assessed using the two most common thresholds of LVEF used in cardiotoxicity clinical studies and practice: 50 and 55%.
Compared to CMR reference LVEFs, MUGA clinical LVEFs were only lower by a mean of 1.5% (48.5% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.17). However, the limits of agreement between MUGA clinical and CMR reference LVEFs were wide at -19.4 to 16.5%. At LVEF thresholds of 50 and 55%, there was misclassification of 35 and 20% of cancer patients, respectively.
MUGA clinical LVEFs are only modestly accurate when compared with CMR reference LVEFs. These data have significant implications on clinical research and patient care of a population with, or at risk for, cardiotoxicity. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s12968-017-0348-4 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5364623</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1883998863</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-57cfe74131fad3d26ddadfbe493613b5ea1cc67fbffca9e7c7b086261396c9453</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkctq3DAUhk1paC7tA3RTBF07tSxZly4KIfQGgWwS6E7Ix9JEgy05kjxhHqrvWDkzDe1KB_3f-c-R_qp6j5tLjAX7lHArmagbzOuGUFHTV9UZ7khb01b-el3qRvKaMcpPq_OUtk2DJW_4m-q0FYR0XIiz6vcVwBI17FGwaDQ2o53xOTpYRh2R2RrILnhkC_Jc9HsEwWczzSHquEfTMmY3jwZtdDYD0vC4uOSe0QTae-c3yHk06-yKb0JPLj-gIoCJn4vTNOvoUoGP93FwYafTYfqkN95kByiagqw9b6sTq8dk3h3Pi-r-29e76x_1ze33n9dXNzXQlue642ANp5hgqwcytGwY9GB7QyVhmPSd0RiAcdtbC1oaDrxvBGuLJhlI2pGL6svBd176yQywfoke1RzdVB6tgnbqf8W7B7UJO9URRllLisHHo0EMj4tJWW3DEn3ZWWEhiJRCsJXCBwpiSCka-zIBN2pNWB0SViVhtSasaOn58O9qLx1_IyV_AI2hqao</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1883998863</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction by contemporary multiple gated acquisition scanning in patients with cancer: comparison with cardiovascular magnetic resonance</title><source>ScienceDirect</source><source>ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Huang, Hans ; Nijjar, Prabhjot S ; Misialek, Jeffrey R ; Blaes, Anne ; Derrico, Nicholas P ; Kazmirczak, Felipe ; Klem, Igor ; Farzaneh-Far, Afshin ; Shenoy, Chetan</creator><creatorcontrib>Huang, Hans ; Nijjar, Prabhjot S ; Misialek, Jeffrey R ; Blaes, Anne ; Derrico, Nicholas P ; Kazmirczak, Felipe ; Klem, Igor ; Farzaneh-Far, Afshin ; Shenoy, Chetan</creatorcontrib><description>Multiple gated acquisition scanning (MUGA) is a common imaging modality for baseline and serial assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) for cardiotoxicity risk assessment prior to, surveillance during, and surveillance after administration of potentially cardiotoxic cancer treatment. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) obtained by contemporary clinical multiple gated acquisition scans (MUGA) with reference LVEFs from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in consecutive patients with cancer.
In a cross-sectional study, we compared MUGA clinical and CMR reference LVEFs in 75 patients with cancer who had both studies within 30 days. Misclassification was assessed using the two most common thresholds of LVEF used in cardiotoxicity clinical studies and practice: 50 and 55%.
Compared to CMR reference LVEFs, MUGA clinical LVEFs were only lower by a mean of 1.5% (48.5% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.17). However, the limits of agreement between MUGA clinical and CMR reference LVEFs were wide at -19.4 to 16.5%. At LVEF thresholds of 50 and 55%, there was misclassification of 35 and 20% of cancer patients, respectively.
MUGA clinical LVEFs are only modestly accurate when compared with CMR reference LVEFs. These data have significant implications on clinical research and patient care of a population with, or at risk for, cardiotoxicity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1097-6647</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-429X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12968-017-0348-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28335788</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central</publisher><subject>Aged ; Antineoplastic Agents - adverse effects ; Breast cancer ; Cancer ; Cancer therapies ; Cardiac-Gated Imaging Techniques ; Cardiotoxicity ; Colleges & universities ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Family medical history ; Female ; Heart ; Heart Diseases - chemically induced ; Heart Diseases - diagnostic imaging ; Heart Diseases - physiopathology ; Heart failure ; Humans ; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Magnetic resonance ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine - methods ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasms - drug therapy ; NMR ; Nuclear magnetic resonance ; Patients ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Radionuclide Imaging - methods ; Reproducibility of Results ; Resonance ; Risk assessment ; Scanning ; Stroke Volume - drug effects ; Surveillance ; Thresholds ; Time Factors ; Ventricle ; Ventricular Function, Left - drug effects</subject><ispartof>Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance, 2017-03, Vol.19 (1), p.34, Article 34</ispartof><rights>Copyright BioMed Central 2017</rights><rights>The Author(s). 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-57cfe74131fad3d26ddadfbe493613b5ea1cc67fbffca9e7c7b086261396c9453</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-57cfe74131fad3d26ddadfbe493613b5ea1cc67fbffca9e7c7b086261396c9453</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5364623/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1883998863?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,44590,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28335788$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huang, Hans</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nijjar, Prabhjot S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Misialek, Jeffrey R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blaes, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Derrico, Nicholas P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kazmirczak, Felipe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klem, Igor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farzaneh-Far, Afshin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shenoy, Chetan</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction by contemporary multiple gated acquisition scanning in patients with cancer: comparison with cardiovascular magnetic resonance</title><title>Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance</title><addtitle>J Cardiovasc Magn Reson</addtitle><description>Multiple gated acquisition scanning (MUGA) is a common imaging modality for baseline and serial assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) for cardiotoxicity risk assessment prior to, surveillance during, and surveillance after administration of potentially cardiotoxic cancer treatment. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) obtained by contemporary clinical multiple gated acquisition scans (MUGA) with reference LVEFs from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in consecutive patients with cancer.
In a cross-sectional study, we compared MUGA clinical and CMR reference LVEFs in 75 patients with cancer who had both studies within 30 days. Misclassification was assessed using the two most common thresholds of LVEF used in cardiotoxicity clinical studies and practice: 50 and 55%.
Compared to CMR reference LVEFs, MUGA clinical LVEFs were only lower by a mean of 1.5% (48.5% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.17). However, the limits of agreement between MUGA clinical and CMR reference LVEFs were wide at -19.4 to 16.5%. At LVEF thresholds of 50 and 55%, there was misclassification of 35 and 20% of cancer patients, respectively.
MUGA clinical LVEFs are only modestly accurate when compared with CMR reference LVEFs. These data have significant implications on clinical research and patient care of a population with, or at risk for, cardiotoxicity.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Antineoplastic Agents - adverse effects</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Cardiac-Gated Imaging Techniques</subject><subject>Cardiotoxicity</subject><subject>Colleges & universities</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Family medical history</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heart</subject><subject>Heart Diseases - chemically induced</subject><subject>Heart Diseases - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Heart Diseases - physiopathology</subject><subject>Heart failure</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasms - drug therapy</subject><subject>NMR</subject><subject>Nuclear magnetic resonance</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Radionuclide Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Resonance</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Scanning</subject><subject>Stroke Volume - drug effects</subject><subject>Surveillance</subject><subject>Thresholds</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Ventricle</subject><subject>Ventricular Function, Left - drug effects</subject><issn>1097-6647</issn><issn>1532-429X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkctq3DAUhk1paC7tA3RTBF07tSxZly4KIfQGgWwS6E7Ix9JEgy05kjxhHqrvWDkzDe1KB_3f-c-R_qp6j5tLjAX7lHArmagbzOuGUFHTV9UZ7khb01b-el3qRvKaMcpPq_OUtk2DJW_4m-q0FYR0XIiz6vcVwBI17FGwaDQ2o53xOTpYRh2R2RrILnhkC_Jc9HsEwWczzSHquEfTMmY3jwZtdDYD0vC4uOSe0QTae-c3yHk06-yKb0JPLj-gIoCJn4vTNOvoUoGP93FwYafTYfqkN95kByiagqw9b6sTq8dk3h3Pi-r-29e76x_1ze33n9dXNzXQlue642ANp5hgqwcytGwY9GB7QyVhmPSd0RiAcdtbC1oaDrxvBGuLJhlI2pGL6svBd176yQywfoke1RzdVB6tgnbqf8W7B7UJO9URRllLisHHo0EMj4tJWW3DEn3ZWWEhiJRCsJXCBwpiSCka-zIBN2pNWB0SViVhtSasaOn58O9qLx1_IyV_AI2hqao</recordid><startdate>20170324</startdate><enddate>20170324</enddate><creator>Huang, Hans</creator><creator>Nijjar, Prabhjot S</creator><creator>Misialek, Jeffrey R</creator><creator>Blaes, Anne</creator><creator>Derrico, Nicholas P</creator><creator>Kazmirczak, Felipe</creator><creator>Klem, Igor</creator><creator>Farzaneh-Far, Afshin</creator><creator>Shenoy, Chetan</creator><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170324</creationdate><title>Accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction by contemporary multiple gated acquisition scanning in patients with cancer: comparison with cardiovascular magnetic resonance</title><author>Huang, Hans ; Nijjar, Prabhjot S ; Misialek, Jeffrey R ; Blaes, Anne ; Derrico, Nicholas P ; Kazmirczak, Felipe ; Klem, Igor ; Farzaneh-Far, Afshin ; Shenoy, Chetan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-57cfe74131fad3d26ddadfbe493613b5ea1cc67fbffca9e7c7b086261396c9453</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Antineoplastic Agents - adverse effects</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Cardiac-Gated Imaging Techniques</topic><topic>Cardiotoxicity</topic><topic>Colleges & universities</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Family medical history</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heart</topic><topic>Heart Diseases - chemically induced</topic><topic>Heart Diseases - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Heart Diseases - physiopathology</topic><topic>Heart failure</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasms - drug therapy</topic><topic>NMR</topic><topic>Nuclear magnetic resonance</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Radionuclide Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Resonance</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Scanning</topic><topic>Stroke Volume - drug effects</topic><topic>Surveillance</topic><topic>Thresholds</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Ventricle</topic><topic>Ventricular Function, Left - drug effects</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huang, Hans</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nijjar, Prabhjot S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Misialek, Jeffrey R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blaes, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Derrico, Nicholas P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kazmirczak, Felipe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klem, Igor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farzaneh-Far, Afshin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shenoy, Chetan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huang, Hans</au><au>Nijjar, Prabhjot S</au><au>Misialek, Jeffrey R</au><au>Blaes, Anne</au><au>Derrico, Nicholas P</au><au>Kazmirczak, Felipe</au><au>Klem, Igor</au><au>Farzaneh-Far, Afshin</au><au>Shenoy, Chetan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction by contemporary multiple gated acquisition scanning in patients with cancer: comparison with cardiovascular magnetic resonance</atitle><jtitle>Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance</jtitle><addtitle>J Cardiovasc Magn Reson</addtitle><date>2017-03-24</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>34</spage><pages>34-</pages><artnum>34</artnum><issn>1097-6647</issn><eissn>1532-429X</eissn><abstract>Multiple gated acquisition scanning (MUGA) is a common imaging modality for baseline and serial assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) for cardiotoxicity risk assessment prior to, surveillance during, and surveillance after administration of potentially cardiotoxic cancer treatment. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) obtained by contemporary clinical multiple gated acquisition scans (MUGA) with reference LVEFs from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in consecutive patients with cancer.
In a cross-sectional study, we compared MUGA clinical and CMR reference LVEFs in 75 patients with cancer who had both studies within 30 days. Misclassification was assessed using the two most common thresholds of LVEF used in cardiotoxicity clinical studies and practice: 50 and 55%.
Compared to CMR reference LVEFs, MUGA clinical LVEFs were only lower by a mean of 1.5% (48.5% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.17). However, the limits of agreement between MUGA clinical and CMR reference LVEFs were wide at -19.4 to 16.5%. At LVEF thresholds of 50 and 55%, there was misclassification of 35 and 20% of cancer patients, respectively.
MUGA clinical LVEFs are only modestly accurate when compared with CMR reference LVEFs. These data have significant implications on clinical research and patient care of a population with, or at risk for, cardiotoxicity.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central</pub><pmid>28335788</pmid><doi>10.1186/s12968-017-0348-4</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1097-6647 |
| ispartof | Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance, 2017-03, Vol.19 (1), p.34, Article 34 |
| issn | 1097-6647 1532-429X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5364623 |
| source | ScienceDirect; ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Aged Antineoplastic Agents - adverse effects Breast cancer Cancer Cancer therapies Cardiac-Gated Imaging Techniques Cardiotoxicity Colleges & universities Cross-Sectional Studies Family medical history Female Heart Heart Diseases - chemically induced Heart Diseases - diagnostic imaging Heart Diseases - physiopathology Heart failure Humans Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods Magnetic resonance Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine - methods Male Middle Aged Neoplasms - drug therapy NMR Nuclear magnetic resonance Patients Predictive Value of Tests Radionuclide Imaging - methods Reproducibility of Results Resonance Risk assessment Scanning Stroke Volume - drug effects Surveillance Thresholds Time Factors Ventricle Ventricular Function, Left - drug effects |
| title | Accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction by contemporary multiple gated acquisition scanning in patients with cancer: comparison with cardiovascular magnetic resonance |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T14%3A39%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accuracy%20of%20left%20ventricular%20ejection%20fraction%20by%20contemporary%20multiple%20gated%20acquisition%20scanning%20in%20patients%20with%20cancer:%20comparison%20with%20cardiovascular%20magnetic%20resonance&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20cardiovascular%20magnetic%20resonance&rft.au=Huang,%20Hans&rft.date=2017-03-24&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=34&rft.pages=34-&rft.artnum=34&rft.issn=1097-6647&rft.eissn=1532-429X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12968-017-0348-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1883998863%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-57cfe74131fad3d26ddadfbe493613b5ea1cc67fbffca9e7c7b086261396c9453%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1883998863&rft_id=info:pmid/28335788&rfr_iscdi=true |