ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2009
Paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies: CT vs PET.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Metachronous metastasis confined to isolated lymph node after curative treatment of colorectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Article
- Computed Tomography Fluoroscopy-guided Core Needle Biopsy of Abdominal Para-aortic Lesions: A Retrospective Evaluation of the Diagnostic Yield and Safety.Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan) · 2020Article
- Utility of contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the evaluation of canine insulinoma location.The veterinary quarterly · 2018Article
- The Prognostic Role of Para-Aortic Lymph Nodes in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: Is It Regional or Distant Disease?PloS one · 2015Article
- Multi-site abdominal tuberculosis mimics malignancy on 18F-FDG PET/CT: report of three cases.World journal of gastroenterology · 2010Article
- Cross-sectional Imaging of Gallbladder Carcinoma: An Update.Journal of clinical and experimental hepatologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) for the preoperative detection of paraaortic lymph node (PAN) metastasis in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies.
methodsSixty-six patients with intra-abdominal malignancies who underwent both CT and PET before lymphadenectomy were included in this study. Histopathologically, 13 patients had metastatic PAN, while 53 had non-metastatic PAN. The CT criteria for metastasis were: short diameter of > 8 mm, lobular or irregular shape, and/or combined ancillary findings, including necrosis, conglomeration, vessel encasement, and infiltration. The PET criterion was positive fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of both modalities were compared with the pathologic findings, and the false positive and false negative cases with both CT and PET were analyzed.
resultsThe sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of CT were 61.5%, 84.9%, 50%, 90% and 80.3%, respectively. For PET, the percentages were 46.2%, 100%, 100%, 88.3%, and 89.4%. Additionally, there were 8 false positive CT cases (8/53, 15.1%) and zero false positive PET cases. Of the 13 metastatic PANs, there were 5 false negative CT scans (38.5%) and 7 (53.9%) false negative PET scans.
conclusionFor detecting PAN metastasis, CT is more sensitive than PET, while PET is more specific.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.