Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21468765›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2011

What is the most accurate whole-body imaging modality for assessment of local and distant recurrent disease in colorectal cancer? A meta-analysis : imaging for recurrent colorectal cancer.

Monique Maas, Iris J G Rutten, Patty J Nelemans, Doenja M J Lambregts, Vincent C Cappendijk, Geerard L Beets, Regina G H Beets-Tan

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. FDG PET/CT in cancer: comparison of actual use with literature-based recommendations.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Local Recurrences in Rectal Cancer: MRI vs. CT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Clinical impact of PET/MR in treated colorectal cancer patients.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019
    Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT as first choice in the detection of recurrent colorectal cancer due to rising CEA.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2015
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Monique MaasDepartment of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Iris J G Rutten
Patty J Nelemans
Doenja M J Lambregts
Vincent C Cappendijk
Geerard L Beets
Regina G H Beets-Tan
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography (PET), PET/CT, CT and MRI as whole-body imaging modalities for the detection of local and/or distant recurrent disease in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who have a (high) suspicion of recurrent disease, based on clinical findings or rise in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA).

methodsA meta-analysis was undertaken. PubMed and Embase were searched for studies on the accuracy of whole-body imaging for patients with suspected local and/or distant recurrence of their CRC. Additionally, studies had to have included at least 20 patients with CRC and 2 × 2 contingency tables had to be provided or derivable. Articles evaluating only local recurrence or liver metastasis were excluded. Summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed from the data on sensitivity and specificity of individual studies and pooled estimates of diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) and areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were calculated. To test for heterogeneity the Cochran Q test was used.

resultsFourteen observational studies were included which evaluated PET, PET/CT, CT and/or MRI. Study results were available in 12 studies for PET, in 5 studies for CT, in 5 studies for PET/CT and in 1 study for MRI. AUCs for PET, PET/CT and CT were 0.94 (0.90-0.97), 0.94 (0.87-0.98) and 0.83 (0.72-0.90), respectively. In patient based analyses PET/CT had a higher diagnostic performance than PET with an AUC of 0.95 (0.89-0.97) for PET/CT vs 0.92 (0.86-0.96) for PET.

conclusionBoth whole-body PET and PET/CT are very accurate for the detection of local and/or distant recurrent disease in CRC patients with a (high) suspicion of recurrent disease. CT has the lowest diagnostic performance. This difference is probably mainly due to the lower accuracy of CT for detection of extrahepatic metastases (including local recurrence). For clinical practice PET/CT might be the modality of choice when evaluating patients with a (high) suspicion of recurrent disease, because of its best performance in patient based analyses and confident prediction of disease status.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalROC CurveWhole Body Imaging

Identifiers

PMID21468765
PMCPMC3126998
OpenAlexW1991792312

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.