Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11571948›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2001

Limited value of positron emission tomography in treatment of pancreatic cancer: surgeon's view.

R K Kasperk, K P Riesener, K Wilms, V Schumpelick

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of surgery, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Value of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  3. The role ofJournal of radiation oncology · 2013
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Oncologic positron emission tomography: a surgical perspective.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2003
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

R K KasperkDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital, Rheinisch-Westfaelische Technische Hochschule (RWTH) Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse, D-52057 Aachen, Germany.
K P Riesener
K Wilms
V Schumpelick

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to assess, from a surgical point of view, the value of positron emission tomography (PET) in the routine preoperative diagnostic evaluation of a pancreatic mass. In particular, we were interested in PET's ability to distinguish a malignancy from a nonmalignant process and its impact on surgical decision making. We documented prospectively the results of preoperative ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and PET in terms of a correct diagnosis of malignancy in 103 patients. All patients underwent surgery at our department and had a complete histologic workup. We then related the preoperative findings to the intraoperative and histologic findings and analyzed the advantages and limitations of PET in comparison with conventional diagnostic techniques. Both CT and PET showed high sensitivities (82% and 84%, respectively) but rather low specificities (61%). ERCP showed good specificity at 83% but weak sensitivity at 46%. The positive predictive value was higher than 80% for all methods, whereas the negative predictive value was around 60% at best. Both the CT and the PET diagnoses were wrong in 15% of the cases. In all cases with a false CT diagnosis, the results of the other conventional examinations provided sufficient evidence to indicate the need for surgical intervention. In all cases where PET gave misleading results, CT findings indicated the need for surgery. PET overlooked pT1 cancers in three of the patients. PET does not reliably prove or exclude malignancy in situations where conventional diagnostic procedures leave doubt as to the nature of a pancreatic mass. PET does introduce a new procedure-related spectrum of misinterpretations to the diagnostic process.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDiagnostic ErrorsTomography, Emission-ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic ProtocolsCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeChronic DiseaseDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic NeoplasmsPancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID11571948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.