ArticleBMC cancer2011
Diagnostic performance of contrast enhanced CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in suspicious recurrence of biliary tract cancer after curative resection.
Article in BMC cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic investigation, intervention, and outcome for post-subtotal gastrectomy patients who present with jaundice.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Salvage radiotherapy for locoregionally recurrent extrahepatic bile duct cancer after radical surgery.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Monitoring outcomes in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients following hepatic resection.Hepatic oncology · 2016Review
- Surveillance method and imaging characteristics of recurrent biliary cancer after surgical resection.Korean journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBecause of the late clinical presentation of biliary tract cancer (BTC), only 10% of patients are eligible for curative surgery. Even among those patients who have undergone curative surgery, most patients develop recurrent cancer. This study is to determine the clinical role of 18F-FDG PET/CT during post-operative surveillance of suspected recurrent BTC based on symptoms, laboratory findings and contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) findings.
methodsWe consecutively enrolled 50 patients with BTC who underwent curative surgery. An 18F-FDG PET/CT was obtained for assessment of recurrence based on clinical suspicion during post-operative surveillance. The final confirmation of recurrence was determined pathologically or clinically. When a pathologic confirmation was impossible or inconclusive, a clinical confirmation was used by radiologic correlation with subsequent follow-up ceCT at a minimum of 3-month intervals. Diagnostic efficacy was evaluated by comparing the results of ceCT and 18F-FDG PET/CT with the final diagnosis.
resultsAmong the 50 patients, 34(68%) were confirmed to have a recurrence. PET/CT showed higher sensitivity (88% vs. 76%, p=0.16) and accuracy (82% vs. 66%, p=0.11) for recurrence compared to ceCT, even though the difference was not significant. The positive (86% vs. 74%, p=0.72) and negative predictive values for recurrence (73% vs. 47%, p=0.55) were not significantly different between PET/CT and ceCT. However, an additional PET/CT on ceCT significantly improved the sensitivity than did a ceCT alone (94% [32/34] for PET/CT on ceCT vs. 76% [26/34] for ceCT alone, p=0.03) without increasing the specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.
conclusions18F-FDG PET/CT alone is not more sensitive or specific than ceCT in the detection of recurrent BTC after curative surgery. These results do not reach statistical significance, probably due to the low number of patients. However, an additional 18F-FDG PET/CT on ceCT significantly improves the sensitivity of detecting recurrences.
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.