SynthesisJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine2013
The lack of evidence for PET or PET/CT surveillance of patients with treated lymphoma, colorectal cancer, and head and neck cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colorectal cancer (CRC) monitoring by 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT: an open-label multicentre randomised trial.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2018Trial
- Diagnostic Performance of F-18 FDG PET/CT in the Detection of Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: Correlation with Biochemical Markers and Conventional Imaging Modalities.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Optimized 18F-FDG PET-CT Method to Improve Accuracy of Diagnosis of Metastatic Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Application of circulating tumour cells to predict response to treatment in head and neck cancer.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2022Article
- Quantitative detection of circulating MT-ND1 as a potential biomarker for colorectal cancer.Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences · 2021Article
- False Positive Positron Emission Tomography / Computed Tomography Scans in Treated Head and Neck Cancers.Cureus · 2017Article
- FDG-PET imaging in hematological malignancies.Blood reviews · 2016Review
- Use of Positron Emission Tomography to Detect Recurrence and Associations With Survival in Patients With Lung and Esophageal Cancers.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2016Article
- Trends in the Use of (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET Imaging in Surveillance of Non-Small-Cell Lung and Colorectal Cancer.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2016Article
- Surveillance radiologic imaging after treatment of oropharyngeal cancer: a review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2015Review
- Metabolic activity of primary uveal melanoma on PET/CT scan and its relationship with monosomy 3 and other prognostic factors.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2014Article
- Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Oncology.Cancers · 2014Review
- Molecular imaging in stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury.BioMed research international · 2014Review
- Standards for reporting PET clinical trials.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
unlabelledPET and PET/CT are widely used for surveillance of patients after cancer treatments. We conducted a systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of PET and PET/CT used for surveillance in several cancers.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases from 1996 to March 2012 for English-language studies of PET or PET/CT used for surveillance of patients with lymphoma, colorectal cancer, or head and neck cancer. We included prospective or retrospective studies that reported test accuracy and comparative studies that assessed clinical impact.
resultsTwelve studies met our inclusion criteria: 6 lymphoma (n = 767 patients), 2 colorectal cancer (n = 96), and 4 head and neck cancer (n = 194). All studies lacked a uniform definition of surveillance and scan protocols. Half the studies were retrospective, and a third were rated as low quality. The majority reported sensitivities and specificities in the range of 90%-100%, although several studies reported lower results. The only randomized controlled trial, a colorectal cancer study with 65 patients in the surveillance arm, reported earlier detection of recurrences with PET and suggested improved clinical outcomes.
conclusionThere is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the clinical impact of PET or PET/CT surveillance for these cancers. The lack of standard definitions for surveillance, heterogeneous scanning protocols, and inconsistencies in reporting test accuracy preclude making an informed judgment on the value of PET for this potential indication.
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.