ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2009
Clinical value of F-FDG PET/CT in assessing suspicious relapse after rectal cancer resection.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma 34C>G polymorphism and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2010Pooled it
- Clinical Indications and Impact on Management: Fourth and Subsequent Posttherapy Follow-upJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2017Article
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 evaluate the value of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ((18)F-FDG PET/CT) in the restaging of resected rectal cancer.
methodsFrom January 2007 to Sep 2008, 21 patients who had undergone curative surgery resection for rectal carcinoma with suspicious relapse in conventional imaging or clinical findings were retrospectively enrolled in our study. The patients underwent 28 PET/CT scans (two patients had two scans, one patient had three and one had four scans). Locoregional recurrences and/or distant metastases were confirmed by histological analysis or clinical and imaging follow-up.
resultsFinal diagnosis was confirmed by histopathological diagnosis in 12 patients (57.1%) and by clinical and imaging follow-up in nine patients (42.9%). Eight patients had extrapelvic metastases with no evidence of pelvic recurrence. Seven patients had both pelvic recurrence and extrapelvic metastases, and two patients had pelvic recurrence only. (18)F-FDG PET/CT was negative in two patients and positive in 19 patients. (18)F-FDG PET/CT was true positive in 17 patients and false positive in two. The accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT was 90.5%, negative predictive value was 100%, and positive predictive value was 89.5%. Five patients with perirectal recurrence underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT image guided tissue core biopsy. (18)F-FDG PET/CT also guided surgical resection of pulmonary metastases in three patients and monitored the response to salvage chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy in four patients.
conclusion(18)F-FDG PET/CT is useful for evaluating suspicious locoregional recurrence and distant metastases in the restaging of rectal cancer after curative resection.
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.