ReviewRadiology and oncology2014
Prevalence and malignancy risk of focal colorectal incidental uptake detected by (18)F-FDG-PET or PET/CT: a meta-analysis.
Review in Radiology and oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Physiological distribution ofThe journal of spinal cord medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Prevalence and outcomes of incidental imaging findings: umbrella review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Pooled it
- Incidental colorectal FDG uptake on PET/CT scan and lesions observed during subsequent colonoscopy: a systematic review.Techniques in coloproctology · 2017Pooled it
- Prevalence and risk of malignancy of focal incidental uptake detected by fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the parotid gland: a meta-analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2015Pooled it
- Beyond the Primary Tumor: Malignancy Risk and Evaluation Strategies forMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2026Article
- The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in spinal infections: A comprehensive diagnostic tool.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Definitions of Incidental [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Diagnostic Yield of [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Focal incidental colorectal fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: Should it be spotlighted?World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Clinical significance ofJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Unexpected focal fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in main organs; pass through or pass by?World journal of clinical cases · 2024Review
- Polymer clip granuloma mimicking lymph node recurrence: a case report.Surgical case reports · 2024Article
- Patients from general practice with non-specific cancer symptoms: a retrospective study of symptoms and imaging.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Assessment of water enema PET/CT: an effective imaging technique for the diagnosis of incidental colorectalBMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Can physiologic colonic [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Significance of incidental focal fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in colon/rectum, thyroid, and prostate: With a brief literature review.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Incidental FocalMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2022Article
- Assessment of incidental focal colorectal uptake by analysis of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography parameters.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Incidental analWorld journal of clinical cases · 2020Article
- The value of using fludeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography scan with respect to colorectal abnormalities-a cross-sectional study.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to meta-analyze published data about prevalence and malignancy risk of focal colorectal incidentalomas (FCIs) detected by Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography ((18)F-FDG-PET or PET/CT).
methodsA comprehensive computer literature search of studies published through July 31(st) 2012 regarding FCIs detected by (18)F-FDG-PET or PET/CT was performed. Pooled prevalence of patients with FCIs and risk of malignant or premalignant FCIs after colonoscopy or histopathology verification were calculated. Furthermore, separate calculations for geographic areas were performed. Finally, average standardized uptake values (SUV) in malignant, premalignant and benign FCIs were reported.
resultsThirty-two studies comprising 89,061 patients evaluated by (18)F-FDG-PET or PET/CT were included. The pooled prevalence of FCIs detected by (18)F-FDG-PET or PET/CT was 3.6% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.6-4.7%). Overall, 1,044 FCIs detected by (18)F-FDG-PET or PET/CT underwent colonoscopy or histopathology evaluation. Pooled risk of malignant or premalignant lesions was 68% (95% CI: 60-75%). Risk of malignant and premalignant FCIs in Asia-Oceania was lower compared to that of Europe and America. A significant overlap in average SUV was found between malignant, premalignant and benign FCIs.
conclusionsFCIs are observed in a not negligible number of patients who undergo (18)F-FDG-PET or PET/CT studies with a high risk of malignant or premalignant lesions. SUV is not reliable as a tool to differentiate between malignant, premalignant and benign FCIs. Further investigation is warranted whenever FCIs are detected by (18)F-FDG-PET or PET/CT.
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.