Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25883884›Full record

ArticleSpringerPlus2015

F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for differential diagnosis of pancreatic tumors.

Masato Yoshioka, Hiroshi Uchinami, Go Watanabe, Tsutomu Sato, Satoshi Shibata, Makoto Kume, Koichi Ishiyama, Satoshi Takahashi, Manabu Hashimoto, Yuzo Yamamoto

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SpringerPlus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Masato YoshiokaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita, 010-8543 Japan.
Hiroshi UchinamiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita, 010-8543 Japan.
Go WatanabeDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita, 010-8543 Japan.
Tsutomu SatoDepartment of Surgery, Akita City Hospital, Akita, 010-0933 Japan.
Satoshi ShibataDepartment of Surgery, Honjo Daiichi Hospital, Honjo, Akita, 015-8567 Japan.
Makoto KumeDepartment of Surgery, Murakami Memorial Hospital, Asahi University, Gifu, 500-8523 Japan.
Koichi IshiyamaDepartment of Radiology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita, 010-8543 Japan.
Satoshi TakahashiDepartment of Radiology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita, 010-8543 Japan.
Manabu HashimotoDepartment of Radiology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita, 010-8543 Japan.
Yuzo YamamotoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita, 010-8543 Japan.
Akita University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG-PET) has been proven useful for differentiating pancreatic ductal cancer from mass-forming chronic pancreatitis. However, there are particular pancreatic tumors having various grades of malignancy such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. We examined whether the cut-off value of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) determined by pancreatic ductal cancers is also applicable for other pancreatic tumors. One hundred thirty six patients with pancreatic tumors underwent FDG-PET imaging. We first analyzed the cut-off value to differentiate pancreatic ductal cancers from mass-forming chronic pancreatitis. Secondly, we determined the cut-off value between malignant IPMN and benign IPMN. Thirdly, we computed a cut-off value between malignant pancreatic tumors and benign tumors irrespective of tumor type. The optimal cut-off value to differentiate ductal cancers from mass-forming chronic pancreatitis was 2.5. The optimal cut-off value for differentiating malignant IPMN from benign IPMN was also 2.5, similar to that of reported studies. In all types of pancreatic tumors, the cut-off value was also 2.5. The accuracy for detecting malignancy was 93.4% for all tumors. In the FDG-PET study for pancreatic tumors, an SUVmax of 2.5 would be justified as a cut-off value to differentiate malignant lesions.

Indexed as

Cut-offFDG-PETIPMNNon-ductal pancreatic cancerSUV

Identifiers

PMID25883884
PMCPMC4392042
OpenAlexW2069957645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.