ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2010
Low-dose non-enhanced CT versus full-dose contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for the diagnosis of uterine cancer recurrence.
Article 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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improvements in PET Image Quality in Time of Flight (TOF) Simultaneous PET/MRI.Molecular imaging and biology · 2016Trial
- Comprehensive literature review of oral and intravenous contrast-enhanced PET/CT: a step forward?Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- A study on the clinical value ofOncology letters · 2021Article
- Results of a Prospective Trial to CompareDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Detection of bone metastases in uterine cancer: How common are they and should PET/CT be the standard for diagnosis?Gynecologic oncology reports · 2021Article
- The Complementary Role of Imaging and Tumor Biomarkers in Gynecological Cancers: An Update of the LiteratureAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Review
- The role ofThe British journal of radiology · 2017Review
- Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the carcinoma of the uterus: a review of literature.Yonsei medical journal · 2014Review
- Present and future role of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of gynecologic malignancies.Japanese journal of radiology · 2014Review
- 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
- Are contrast media required for (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT in patients with neuroendocrine tumours of the abdomen?European radiology · 2012Article
- The role of FDG-PET/CT in gynaecological cancers.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2012Review
- Imaging of female pelvic malignancies regarding MRI, CT, and PET/CT : part 1.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2011Review
- Imaging of endometrial and cervical cancer.Insights into imaging · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate low-dose non-enhanced CT (ldCT) and full-dose contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) in integrated (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT studies for restaging of uterine cancer.
methodsA group of 100 women who had undergone treatment for uterine cervical (n=55) or endometrial cancer (n=45) underwent a conventional PET/CT scans with ldCT, and then a ceCT scan. Two observers retrospectively reviewed and interpreted the PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT images in consensus using a three-point grading scale (negative, equivocal, or positive) per patient and per lesion. Final diagnoses were obtained by histopathological examination, or clinical follow-up for at least 6 months.
resultsPatient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET/ceCT were 90% (27/30), 97% (68/70) and 95% (95/100), respectively, whereas those of PET/ldCT were 83% (25/30), 94% (66/70) and 91% (91/100), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy did not significantly differ between two methods (McNemar test, p=0.48, p=0.48, and p=0.13, respectively). There were 52 sites of lesion recurrence: 12 pelvic lymph node (LN), 11 local recurrence, 8 peritoneum, 7 abdominal LN, 5 lung, 3 supraclavicular LN, 3 liver, 2 mediastinal LN, and 1 muscle and bone. The grading results for the 52 sites of recurrence were: negative 5, equivocal 0 and positive 47 for PET/ceCT, and negative 5, equivocal 4 and positive 43 for PET/ldCT, respectively. Four equivocal regions by PET/ldCT (local recurrence, pelvic LN metastasis, liver metastasis and muscle metastasis) were correctly interpreted as positive by PET/ceCT.
conclusionPET/ceCT is an accurate imaging modality for the assessment of uterine cancer recurrence. Its use reduces the frequency of equivocal interpretations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20386901What 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.