ArticleJournal of radiation research2013
Efficacy of FDG-PET for defining gross tumor volume of head and neck cancer.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gross tumour volume comparison in oropharynx carcinomas using different intelligent imaging software. A retrospective analysis.Polish journal of radiology · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We analyzed the data for 53 patients with histologically proven primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated with radiotherapy between February 2006 and August 2009. All patients underwent contrast-enhanced (CE)-CT and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET before radiation therapy planning (RTP) to define the gross tumor volume (GTV). The PET-based GTV (PET-GTV) for RTP was defined using both CE-CT images and FDG-PET images. The CE-CT tumor volume corresponding to a FDG-PET image was regarded as the PET-GTV. The CE-CT-based GTV (CT-GTV) for RTP was defined using CE-CT images alone. Additionally, CT-GTV delineation and PET-GTV delineation were performed by four radiation oncologists independently in 19 cases. All four oncologists did both methods. Of these, PET-GTV delineation was successfully performed in all 19 cases, but CT-GTV delineation was not performed in 4 cases. In the other 15 cases, the mean CT-GTV was larger than the PET-GTV in 10 cases, and the standard deviation of the CT-GTV was larger than that of the PET-GTV in 10 cases. Sensitivity of PET-GTV for identifying the primary tumor was 96%, but that of CT-GTV was 81% (P < 0.01). In patients with oropharyngeal cancer and tongue cancer, the sensitivity of CT-GTV was 63% and 71%, respectively. When both the primary lesions and the lymph nodes were evaluated for RTP, PET-GTV differed from CT-GTV in 19 cases (36%). These results suggested that FDG-PET is effective for defining GTV in RTP for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and PET-GTV evaluated by both CE-CT and FDG-PET images is preferable to CT-GTV by CE-CT alone.
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.