Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19727717›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2010

Meta-analysis of the performance of (18)F-FDG PET in cutaneous melanoma.

Felisa Jiménez-Requena, Roberto C Delgado-Bolton, Cristina Fernández-Pérez, Sanjiv S Gambhir, Judy Schwimmer, José M Pérez-Vázquez, José L Carreras-Delgado

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2015
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Meta-analysis of the performance of (18)F-FDG PET in cutaneous melanoma.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2010
    Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Whole-Body versus Routine Skull Base to Mid-thighJournal of clinical imaging science · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Evaluation ofNuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Felisa Jiménez-RequenaNuclear Medicine Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, 28007, Spain. fjimenezre@gmail.com
Roberto C Delgado-Bolton
Cristina Fernández-Pérez
Sanjiv S Gambhir
Judy Schwimmer
José M Pérez-Vázquez
José L Carreras-Delgado
Hospital Clínico San Carlos · ESHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ESStanford University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the accuracy of FDG-PET in staging and restaging of cutaneous melanoma.

methodsSystematic methods were used to identify, select, and evaluate the methodologic quality of the studies as well as to summarize the overall findings of sensitivity and specificity. The search strategy consisted of identifying studies published between 2000 and 2006. Inclusion criteria were studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance of FDG-PET in staging/restaging of cutaneous melanoma. The results were compared and pooled with a meta-analysis published previously that included studies published until 1999. The meta-analysis included 95% confidence intervals (CI) of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood-ratio (LR), and diagnostic-odds-ratio (DOR).

resultsThe quantitative meta-analysis included 24 studies that were analysed in two groups: eight studies were included only in the regional staging analysis (group I), 13 studies were included only in the detection of distant metastases analysis (group II), and three studies were included in both analyses. Compliance with the methodologic-quality criteria was acceptable. We analysed the results of data presented in patients, lesions, basins, lymph-nodes, areas, and scans. Regarding the performance of FDG-PET in the detection of metastases, the pooled studies presented homogeneity for the negative-LR (0.15; 95% CI, 0.10-0.22) when analyzing lesions. When analyzing scans, there was global homogeneity for specificity (0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.92), positive-LR (5.86; 95% CI, 3.64-9.43), and DOR (37.89; 95% CI, 15.80-90.86). The pooled studies presented heterogeneity for the other items analysed. Regarding the detection of regional metastases, when analyzing lymph-nodes there was global homogeneity for specificity (0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P = 0.101). The meta-regression evidenced that the variable that most influenced the DOR of the different studies and that can explain the heterogeneity was the year of publication; this may be related to the evolution of PET technology and an improvement of sensitivity/specificity.

conclusionFDG-PET is not useful in the evaluation of regional metastases, as it does not detect microscopic disease. However, FDG-PET could be useful in the detection of distant metastases, and could suggest its utility in the management of patients with cutaneous melanoma.

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansIncidenceMelanomaPositron-Emission TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySkin NeoplasmsFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID19727717
PMCPMC2886141
OpenAlexW2058741112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.