ArticleBMC cancer2014
Comparison of two threshold detection criteria methodologies for determination of probe positivity for intraoperative in situ identification of presumed abnormal 18F-FDG-avid tissue sites during radioguided oncologic surgery.
Article in BMC cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Concept for Preoperative and Intraoperative Molecular Imaging and Detection for Assessing Extent of Disease of Solid Tumors.Oncology reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Endoscopic detection of cancer with lensless radioluminescence imaging and machine vision.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative in situ identification of (18)F-FDG-avid tissue sites during radioguided oncologic surgery remains a significant challenge for surgeons. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the 1.5-to-1 ratiometric threshold criteria method versus the three-sigma statistical threshold criteria method for determination of gamma detection probe positivity for intraoperative in situ identification of presumed abnormal (18)F-FDG-avid tissue sites in a manner that was independent of the specific type of gamma detection probe used.
methodsFrom among 52 patients undergoing appropriate in situ evaluation of presumed abnormal (18)F-FDG-avid tissue sites during (18)F-FDG-directed surgery using 6 available gamma detection probe systems, a total of 401 intraoperative gamma detection probe measurement sets of in situ counts per second measurements were cumulatively taken.
resultsFor the 401 intraoperative gamma detection probe measurement sets, probe positivity was successfully met by the 1.5-to-1 ratiometric threshold criteria method in 150/401 instances (37.4%) and by the three-sigma statistical threshold criteria method in 259/401 instances (64.6%) (P < 0.001). Likewise, the three-sigma statistical threshold criteria method detected true positive results at target-to-background ratios much lower than the 1.5-to-1 target-to-background ratio of the 1.5-to-1 ratiometric threshold criteria method.
conclusionsThe three-sigma statistical threshold criteria method was significantly better than the 1.5-to-1 ratiometric threshold criteria method for determination of gamma detection probe positivity for intraoperative in situ detection of presumed abnormal (18)F-FDG-avid tissue sites during radioguided oncologic surgery. This finding may be extremely important for reshaping the ongoing and future research and development of gamma detection probe systems that are necessary for optimizing the in situ detection of radioisotopes of higher-energy gamma photon emissions used during radioguided oncologic surgery.
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.