ArticleOncology letters2014
Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography may aid the diagnosis of aggressive primary prostate cancer: A case series study.
Article in Oncology letters, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Conventional Imaging and 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in the Diagnostic Accuracy of Staging in Patients with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Does focal incidental 18F-FDG PET/CT uptake in the prostate have significance?Abdominal imaging · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent evidence has shown that positive results may be observed for fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in undifferentiated, biologically aggressive and metastatic tumors. The present study describes a case series of six patients with normal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum levels who underwent FDG-PET due to other causes. Positive PET results were observed at the prostate and the patients were subsequently diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer. Clinical, anamnestic, laboratory and instrumental data were collected from six asymptomatic patients with total serum PSA levels of <4 ng/ml who had undergone FDG-PET due to other causes. The FDG-PET and prostate biopsy were positive for prostate cancer. All the patients were treated with radical intent. The median age was 66 years (range, 52-72 years), the median total PSA value was 2.4 ng/ml (range, 1.5-3.9 ng/ml) and the body mass index was 26.4 (range, 21.8-30.2). Three of the six patients underwent FDG-PET due to a clinical suspicion of multiple myeloma, while three patients were examined for other oncological diseases. The pathological analysis at the prostate biopsy revealed three patients with a Gleason score of 6, two with a score of 7 (4+3) and one with a score of 8 (4+4). Five of the six patients were treated by radical prostatectomy and one by radiotherapy. The pathological analysis revealed one patient of pT2a stage, three of pT2c and one of pT3b. No patients demonstrated lymph node invasion. The definitive Gleason score was 3+3 in one patient, 4+3 in one patient, 4+4 in two patients and 5+3 in one patient. Following a median follow-up time of six months (range, 1-12 months), five of the six patients underwent FDG-PET again, which revealed negative results. At the end of this study, these patients were alive without evidence of disease. By contrast, one patient demonstrated positive FDG-PET results. In conclusion, FDG-PET has been used to characterize prostate cancers in patients with apparently normal PSA levels.
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.