ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2013
F-18 FDG PET/CT in the assessment of patients with unexplained CEA rise after surgical curative resection for colorectal cancer.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2013. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Colorectal cancer: Parametric evaluation of morphological, functional and molecular tomographic imaging.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Clinical Significance of Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/computed Tomography in the Follow-up of Colorectal Cancer: Searching off Approaches Increasing Specificity for Detection of Recurrence.Radiology and oncology · 2017Article
- Non-invasive diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases.World journal of radiology · 2015Review
- Early detection of colorectal cancer recurrence in patients undergoing surgery with curative intent: current status and challenges.Journal of Cancer · 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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe evaluated the role of quantitative assessment by maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose [F-18]FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in stratifying colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with unexplained carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) rise after surgical curative resection. MATERIAL AND
methodsForty asymptomatic patients (mean age, 64 ± 12 years) with previous CRC and current serum CEA levels >5 ng/ml underwent [F-18] FDG PET/CT 13 ± 3 months after complete surgical resection. The SUVmax was registered on anastomosis and peri-anastomotic tissue lesions, if present. The patients were followed for 24 ± 9 months thereafter. Re-intervention, evidence of newly discovered distant metastases, and death were recognized as main events and constituted surrogate end points. The receiver-operator-curve (ROC) analysis was performed to estimate the optimal SUVmax cut-off to predict patients at high risk of main events. PET/CT results were then related to disease outcome (overall survival; OS).
resultsThe mean SUVmax at the anastomotic site was 6.2 ± 3 (range 2.6-15). At multivariate logistic regression analysis, the anastomotic SUVmax remained as the only significant contributor to the prediction of the events (p = 0.004; OR 1.97). The ROC analysis recognized that the optimal threshold of SUVmax to differentiate patients was 5.7. A worse OS was observed in patients presenting with a SUVmax greater than 5.7 as compared to those having lesser (median survival: 16 vs. 31 months; p = 0.002).
conclusionsThe quantitative assessment by SUVmax on [F-18]FDG PET/CT may be helpful in patients presenting with unexplained CEA rise after curative resection of CRC, by identifying those at risk of main events.
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.