Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17530248›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2007

Non-enhanced CT versus contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for nodal staging of rectal cancer.

Ukihide Tateishi, Tetsuo Maeda, Tsuyoshi Morimoto, Mototaka Miyake, Yasuaki Arai, E Edmund Kim

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. IsContrast media & molecular imaging · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Predictive Value of [Scientific reports · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. PET/CT in malignant melanoma: contrast-enhanced CT versus plain low-dose CT.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ukihide TateishiDivision of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. utateish@ncc.go.jp
Tetsuo Maeda
Tsuyoshi Morimoto
Mototaka Miyake
Yasuaki Arai
E Edmund Kim

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of the present study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of non-enhanced CT and contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for preoperative nodal staging of rectal cancer.

methodsRetrospective analysis was performed in 53 patients with pathologically proven rectal cancer who had been referred for preoperative staging. All patients underwent integrated PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT followed by whole-body fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose ([(18)F]FDG) PET. Both non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced PET/CT images were evaluated separately by two observers in consensus. The reference standard was histopathologic results. For nodal staging of rectal cancer, we compared diagnostic accuracy on a per-patient basis between the two modalities.

resultsNodal staging was correctly determined with non-enhanced studies in 37 patients (70%) and with contrast-enhanced studies in 42 patients (79%). On a per-patient basis, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of regional lymph node staging were 85%, 68%, 83%, 72%, and 79%, respectively, with contrast-enhanced studies, and 85%, 42%, 73%, 62%, and 70%, respectively, with non-enhanced studies. The difference in the accuracy of nodal staging between the two modalities was not significant (p = 0.063). Compared with non-enhanced studies, contrast-enhanced studies determined more correctly the status of pararectal lymph nodes (p = 0.002), internal iliac lymph nodes (p = 0.004), and obturator lymph nodes (p < 0.0001).

conclusionContrast-enhanced PET/CT is superior to non-enhanced PET/CT for precise definition of regional nodal status in rectal cancer.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaAdultAgedFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPositron-Emission TomographyRadiographic Image EnhancementRectal NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySubtraction TechniqueTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID17530248

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.