Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25899418›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2015

Contrast enhanced chest-MDCT in oncologic patients. Prospective evaluation of the prevalence of incidental pulmonary embolism and added value of thin reconstructions.

Silvia Tresoldi, Nicola Flor, Andrea Luciani, Maria Antonietta Lombardi, Bernardo Colombo, Gianpaolo Cornalba

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Incidental venous thromboembolism: is anticoagulation indicated?Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2017
    Review
  7. Unsuspected pulmonary embolism: a diagnostic dilemma.Internal and emergency medicine · 2016
    Article
  8. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Silvia TresoldiDipartimento di Radiologia Diagnostica ed Interventistica, Azienda Ospedaliera San Paolo, Via di Rudinì 8, 20142, Milano, Italy. silvia.3soldi@gmail.com.
Nicola FlorDipartimento di Radiologia Diagnostica ed Interventistica, Azienda Ospedaliera San Paolo, Via di Rudinì 8, 20142, Milano, Italy.
Andrea LucianiOncologia, Dipartimento di Medicina, Azienda Ospedaliera San Paolo, Via di Rudinì 8, 20142, Milano, Italy.
Maria Antonietta LombardiScuola di Specializzazione in Radiodiagnostica, Facoltà di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milano, Italy.
Bernardo ColomboScuola di Specializzazione in Radiodiagnostica, Facoltà di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milano, Italy.
Gianpaolo CornalbaDipartimento di Radiologia Diagnostica ed Interventistica, Azienda Ospedaliera San Paolo, Via di Rudinì 8, 20142, Milano, Italy.
Ospedale San Paolo · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo prospectively assess prevalence/characteristics of clinically unsuspected pulmonary embolism (PE) in cancer patients undergoing follow-up chest MDCT and investigate MDCT protocol.

methodsWe evaluated 1013 oncologic patients. MDCT images at 5 and 1.25 mm thickness were independently evaluated. Pulmonary artery opacification degree was assessed. Presence, level, and site of PE were reported. Type of malignancy and metastases were reported for PE-positive patients.

resultsAfter excluding 1.4% (14/1013) of examinations due to inadequate vessel opacification, 999 patients (572 male; mean age:68 ± 12 years; range:26-93 years) entered the study. Prevalence of PE was 5%. There was significant improvement in the sensitivity for both readers in the evaluation of 1.25 mm compared to 5 mm images (46-50% to 82-92%). 30% (15/51) PE were not described by the radiologist in the prospectively issued report; 53 % (27/51) of PE were segmental, 72.5% (37/51) unilateral. The right lower lobe was the most involved (59%). 27% patients had colon cancer, 18% lung cancer. Among PE-positive patients (25 male; mean age 70 ± 10 years; range:44-87 years), 25% (13/51) had lung cancer, 15% (8/51) colon cancer.

conclusionsThin reconstructions are essential for PE diagnosis, regardless of reader experience. Regarding oncologic patients, incidental PE diagnosis influences anticoagulation therapy. KEY POINTS: • CT pulmonary angiography is the gold standard for PE diagnosis. • Cancer and oncological treatments are risk factors for PE. • The prevalence of unsuspected PE was 5%. • Thin reconstructions are essential for PE diagnosis regardless of reader experience. • In oncologic patients, PE diagnosis influences anticoagulation therapy.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaIncidental FindingsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColonic NeoplasmsFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedIohexolIopamidolLung NeoplasmsMaleContrast MediaIohexoliomeprolIopamidoliopromideCancerDiagnostic imagingMultidetector computed tomographyPulmonary arteriesPulmonary embolism

Identifiers

PMID25899418
OpenAlexW1993346950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.