ArticleInsights into imaging2013
Clinical impact of (18)F-FDG PET-CT in recurrent stage III/IV melanoma: a tertiary centre Specialist Skin Cancer Multidisciplinary Team (SSMDT) experience.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for staging and re-staging of adults with cutaneous melanoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Role ofWorld journal of nuclear medicine · 2023Article
- The Advantages and Challenges of Using FDG PET/CT for Response Assessment in Melanoma in the Era of Targeted Agents and Immunotherapy.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Review
- Non-cutaneous melanoma: is there a role for (18)F-FDG PET-CT?The British journal of radiology · 2014Review
- Unexpectedly Low FDG and FAPI Uptake in Mucosal Melanoma: Case Report with Literature Review.Indian journal of nuclear medicine : IJNM : the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the clinical impact of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (FDG PET-CT) compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in patients referred via the Specialist Skin Cancer Multidisciplinary Team (SSMDT) with recurrent stage III/IV malignant melanoma (MM).
methodsForty-five patients were referred for further evaluation with FDG PET-CT. Findings on FDG PET-CT were compared with prior CECT and the clinical impact on subsequent management decisions was determined retrospectively. A major clinical impact was defined as a change in treatment plan resulting from identification of additional sites of disease or by characterisation of indeterminate findings on prior imaging. A minor impact was defined as confirmation of known sites of disease as identified on prior CECT.
resultsFifty-one PET-CT examinations were performed. FDG PET-CT had a major clinical impact in 21 cases (41.2 %), of which 18 examinations were performed in patients with proven or suspected stage IV MM. FDG PET-CT had a minor impact in 23 cases (45.1 %), and there were five false-positive cases (9.8 %) and two false-negative cases (3.9 %).
conclusionFDG PET-CT is an effective tool in recurrent stage III/IV MM with a significant clinical impact on management decisions in patients who are appropriately referred via the highly specialised forum of the SSMDT. KEY POINTS: • FDG PET-CT is an effective tool in recurrent stage III/IV malignant melanoma. • FDG PET-CT has a significant clinical impact on management decisions. • Effective use of FDG PET-CT is via referral from the Specialist Skin Cancer Multidisciplinary Team.
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.