Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26774883›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2016

Trends in the Use of (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET Imaging in Surveillance of Non-Small-Cell Lung and Colorectal Cancer.

Christine M Veenstra, Anil Vachani, Christine A Ciunci, Hanna M Zafar, Andrew J Epstein, E Carter Paulson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Use of [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

6 authors.

Christine M VeenstraDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: cveenstr@med.umich.edu.
Anil VachaniDepartment of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Christine A CiunciDepartment of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Hanna M ZafarDepartment of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Andrew J EpsteinDepartment of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
E Carter PaulsonLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CAN CTR SUPPORT GRANTP30CA016520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Robert H. Vonderheide · 1985 to 2026
$222.3M
CANCER RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAMT32CA009615 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Gregory L Beatty, MICHAEL D HOGARTY · 1988 to 2026
$10.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016520NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009615
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSurveillance PET after curative-intent treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) is not clearly supported by available evidence or the Choosing Wisely campaign. However, the frequency of PET imaging during the surveillance period is relatively unknown.

methodsUsing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, 65,748 patients aged 66 years or older who were diagnosed with stage I to IIIA NSCLC or stage I to III CRC from 2001 through 2009 and who underwent surgical resection were identified. Trends in "any PET" or "PET-only" use 6 to 18 months postoperatively were assessed.

resultsAny PET use more than doubled over the study period. Eleven percent of patients with NSCLC and 4% of those with CRC diagnosed in 2001 received any PET, compared with 25% of patients with NSCLC and 13% of those with CRC in 2009 (P < .001 for both). Higher stage disease was correlated with higher PET utilization and faster growth in use over the study period. PET-only use also increased over the study period, especially in higher stage disease. Fewer than 2% of patients diagnosed with stage IIIA NSCLC in 2001 received PET only, compared with 15% of patients diagnosed in 2009 (P = .014). Similarly, 1% of patients diagnosed with stage III CRC in 2001 received PET only, compared with 8% of patients diagnosed in 2009 (P < .001).

conclusionsPET utilization during the surveillance period increased between 2001 and 2009. Further research is needed to determine the factors driving use of surveillance PET and to examine relationships between PET and patient outcomes.

Indexed as

AgedCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungColorectal NeoplasmsDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMedicareNeoplasm StagingPopulation SurveillancePositron-Emission TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsSEER ProgramFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsChoosing Wiselycolorectal cancerFDG-PETnon–small-cell lung cancerPositron emission tomographic imagingsurveillance

Identifiers

PMID26774883
PMCPMC6750770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.