ArticleBMC urology2015
PET/CT versus conventional CT for detection of lymph node metastases in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer.
Article in BMC urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative sensitivity and specificity of imaging modalities in staging bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2019Pooled it
- Diuretic-Enhanced Dual-Phase F-18 FDG PET/CT: A New Window Into Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.World journal of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnostic efficacy of [Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Correlation of preoperative 18F-FDG-PET/CT tumor staging and maximum standardized uptake values with preoperative CT, postoperative tumor classification, and histopathological parameters of oral squamous cell carcinoma.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Management of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer with clinical evidence of pelvic lymph node metastases.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024Review
- FDG-PET/CT for lymph node staging prior to radical cystectomy.European journal of hybrid imaging · 2023Article
- Assessing the Performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Bladder Cancer: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence.Cancers · 2023Review
- The Implementation of FDG PET/CT for Staging Bladder Cancer: Changes in the Detection and Characteristics of Occult Nodal Metastases at Upfront Radical Cystectomy?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- A machine-learning-based combination of criteria to detect bladder cancer lymph node metastasis on [European radiology · 2023Article
- Value of Clinical Information on Radiology Reports in Oncological Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Optimization of Preoperative Lymph Node Staging in Patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Using Radiomics on Computed Tomography.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Methods of Sentinel Lymph Node Detection and Management in Urinary Bladder Cancer-A Narrative Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- Management of Clinically Regional Node-Positive Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder.Current oncology reports · 2021Review
- Performance of fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography imaging for lymph node staging in bladder and upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review.Arab journal of urology · 2020Review
- Role of PET/CT in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Review
- Increasing use of positron emission tomography among medicare beneficiaries undergoing radical cystectomy.European journal of cancer care · 2020Article
- The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Guiding Precision Medicine for Invasive Bladder Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Integrated analysis ofEuropean radiology · 2019Article
- Evaluation of lymph node status in patients with urothelial carcinoma-still in search of the perfect imaging modality: a systematic review.Translational andrology and urology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe studied patients treated with radical cystectomy for locally advanced bladder cancer to compare the results of both preoperative positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and conventional CT with the findings of postoperative histopathological evaluation of lymph nodes.
methodsPatients who had bladder cancer and were candidates for cystectomy underwent preoperative PET/CT using 18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and conventional CT. The results regarding lymph node involvement were independently evaluated by two experienced radiologists and were subsequently compared with histopathology results, the latter of which were reassessed by an experienced uropathologist (HO).
resultsThere were 54 evaluable patients (mean age 68 years, 47 [85%] males and 7 [15%] females) with pT and pN status as follows: < pT2-14 (26%), pT2-10 (18%), and > pT2-30 (56%); pN0 37 (69%) and pN+ 17 (31%). PET/CT showed positive lymph nodes in 12 patients (22%), and 7 of those cases were confirmed by histopathology; the corresponding results for conventional CT were 11 (20%) and 7 patients (13%), respectively. PET/CT had 41% sensitivity, 86% specificity, 58% PPV, and 76% NPV, whereas the corresponding figures for conventional CT were 41%, 89%, 64%, and 77%. Additional analyses of the right and left side of the body or in specified anatomical regions gave similar results.
conclusionsIn this study, PET/CT and conventional CT had similar low sensitivity in detecting and localizing regional lymph node metastasis in bladder cancer.
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.