Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2001
Limited value of positron emission tomography in treatment of pancreatic cancer: surgeon's view.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic impact of 18F-FDG PET-CT evaluating solid pancreatic lesions versus endosonography, endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography with intraductal ultrasonography and abdominal ultrasound.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2008Trial
- Value of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- The role ofJournal of radiation oncology · 2013Article
- Article
- Carcinoma of the head of the pancreas versus chronic pancreatitis: diagnostic dilemma with significant consequences.World journal of surgery · 2003Review
- Oncologic positron emission tomography: a surgical perspective.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
11571948What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.