ArticleOncology letters2013
Three cases of a peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor diagnosed using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Oncology letters, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study describes the findings from three cases of peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumors (PNETs) diagnosed using computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The patients were all diagnosed with PNETs of the peripheral central nervous system. All the lesions were soft-tissue masses with cystic degeneration. The CT images revealed that the lesions were large and inhomogeneous, with unclear borders and cystic degeneration. The surrounding tissues and structures were compressed against each other. Following the enhancement of the CT, the solid components of the tumors were enhanced, whereas the cystic components did not show enhancement. Following the enhanced MRI, irregular enhancement was noted in the solid components and the cystic and solid masses showed unclear borders. The surrounding tissues were compressed. The solid components of the tumors were enhanced, whereas the cystic components showed no enhancement. Based on these observations, PNETs were diagnosed. Thus, a CT or MRI is mandatory for the precise diagnosis of a peripheral PNET.
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.