ReviewCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2012
Blind spots at oncological CT: lessons learned from PET/CT.
Review in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alteration of glucose metabolism and expression of glucose transporters in ovarian cancer.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2024Review
- The Back Alleys and Dark Corners of Abdomen and Pelvis Computed Tomography: The Most Frequent Sites of Missed Findings in the Multiplanar Era.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2020Article
- The Melanoma MAICare Framework: A Microsimulation Model for the Assessment of Individualized Cancer Care.Cancer informatics · 2016Article
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 at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improved accuracy in oncological computed tomography (CT) could lead to a decrease in morbidity and improved survival for oncology patients. Visualization of metabolic activity using the glucose analogue [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in combination with the high anatomic resolution of CT in an integrated positron emission tomography (PET)/CT examination has the highest sensitivity and specificity for the detection of primary and metastatic lesions. However, PET/CT costs are high and patient access is limited; thus CT remains the primary imaging modality in oncology patients. We have noted that subtle lesions are more easily detected on CT by radiologists with PET/CT experience. We aimed to provide a brief review of the literature with comparisons of multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) and PET/CT in primary and metastatic disease with an emphasis on findings that may be overlooked on MDCT in cancer of the breast, lung, colon, and ovaries, and in melanoma, as well as thrombosis in oncology patients. We further reviewed our experience for illustrative comparisons of PET/CT and MDCT studies. Experience in interpreting conventional CT scans alongside PET/CT can help the reader develop an appreciation for the subtle appearance of some lesions on CT that might otherwise be missed. This could improve detection rates, reduce errors, and improve patient management.
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.