ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2009
Performance of integrated FDG PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: Comparison with integrated FDG PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- Clinical utility of FDG-PET/CT for post-surgery surveillance of malignant pleural mesothelioma - Comparison with contrast-enhanced CT.Oncotarget · 2019Article
- Role of pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer in the era of modern multidisciplinary therapy.Surgery today · 2017Article
- Clinical Value of a One-Stop-Shop Low-Dose Lung Screening Combined with (18)F-FDG PET/CT for the Detection of Metastatic Lung Nodules from Colorectal Cancer.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016Article
- Assessment of metastatic colorectal cancer with hybrid imaging: comparison of reading performance using different combinations of anatomical and functional imaging techniques in PET/MRI and PET/CT in a short case series.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016Article
- Value of ¹⁸F-FDG PET-CT in surveillance of postoperative colorectal cancer patients with various carcinoembryonic antigen concentrations.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Article
- Contrast-enhanced [18 F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in clinical oncology: tumor-, site-, and question-based comparison with standard positron emission tomography/computed tomography.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2014Article
- Contrast medium injection protocol adjusted for body surface area in combined PET/CT.European radiology · 2013Article
- False-Positive Mediastinal Lymphadenopathy on 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography after Rectal Cancer Resection: A Case Report of Thoracoscopic Surgery in the Prone Position.Case reports in oncology · 2011Article
- Metabolic positron emission tomography imaging in cancer detection and therapy response.Seminars in oncology · 2011Review
- Low-dose non-enhanced CT versus full-dose contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for the diagnosis of uterine cancer recurrence.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2010Article
- Hybrid versus fusion imaging: are we moving forward judiciously?European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2010Article
- Paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies: CT vs PET.World journal of gastroenterology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) with IV contrast for depiction of suspected recurrent colorectal cancer and to assess the impact of PET/contrast-enhanced CT findings on clinical management compared with PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and CT component.
methodsOne hundred seventy patients previously treated for colorectal cancer underwent PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT for suspected recurrence. PET/contrast-enhanced CT, PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT were interpreted by two experienced radiologists by consensus for each investigation. Lesion status was determined on the basis of histopathology, radiological imaging and clinical follow-up for longer than 6 months.
resultsPatient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET/contrast-enhanced CT were 93.2 (69/74), 95.8 (92/96) and 94.7% (161/170), respectively, whereas those of PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT were 89.2 (66/74), 94.8 (91/96) and 92.4% (157/170), respectively, and those of enhanced CT were 79.7 (59/74), 93.8 (90/96) and 87.6% (149/170), respectively. Sensitivity and accuracy differed significantly among the three modalities (Cochran's Q test: p = 0.0004 and p = 0.0001, respectively).The findings of PET/contrast-enhanced CT resulted in a change of management for 64 of the 170 patients (38%) and had an effect on patient management in 12 patients (7%) diagnosed by enhanced CT alone and 4 patients (2%) diagnosed by PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT.
conclusionIntegrated PET/contrast-enhanced CT is an accurate modality for assessing colorectal cancer recurrence and led to changes in the subsequent appropriate therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19370346What 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.