ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2014
Contrast-enhanced [18 F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in clinical oncology: tumor-, site-, and question-based comparison with standard positron emission tomography/computed tomography.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role ofCancers · 2024Review
- Clinical Value of SurveillanceCancers · 2022Article
- To Enhance or Not to Enhance? The Role of Contrast MediumMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- pH-dependent and cathepsin B activable CaCOInternational journal of nanomedicine · 2019Article
- Comparative diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for breast cancer recurrence.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2017Review
- Role of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT in head and neck oncology: the point of view of the radiation oncologist.The British journal of radiology · 2016Review
- Initial experience in assessing diagnostic utility of conventional and functional imaging (staging CT, PET CT, and MRI Brain/Spine) in suspected cases of paraneoplastic neurological syndrome.Journal of neurosciences in rural practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aimed to evaluate the added value of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) in comparison to standard, non-enhanced CT in the context of a combined positron emission tomography (PET)/CT examination by means of a tumor-, site-, and clinical question-based approach.
methodsAnalysis was performed in 202 patients undergoing PET/CT consisting of a multiphase CT protocol followed by a whole-body PET. The Cochran Q test was performed, followed by a multiple comparisons correction (McNemar test and Bonferroni adjustment), to compare standard and contrast-enhanced PET (cePET/CT). Histopathology or clinical-radiologic follow-up greater than 1 year was used as a reference.
resultscePET/CT showed significantly different results with respect to standard PET/CT in head and neck and gastrointestinal cancer (P = 0.02 and 0.0002, respectively), in the evaluation of lesions located in the abdomen (P = 0.009), and in the context of disease restaging (P = 0.003). In all these clinical scenarios, adding ceCT resulted in a distinct benefit, by yielding a higher percentage of change in patient management.
conclusionThese data strongly underline the importance of strictly selecting patients for the combined exam. In particular, patient selection should not be driven solely by mere tumor classification, but should also account for the clinical question and the anatomical location of the neoplastic disease, which can significantly impact patient management.
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.