ArticleNuclear medicine communications2016
Value of fourth and subsequent post-therapy follow-up 18F-FDG PET/CT scans in patients with breast cancer.
Article in Nuclear medicine communications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Value of FDG PET/CT in Surveillance after Curative Resection of Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2023Article
- Follow-Up Strategies and Detection of Recurrent Breast Cancer in the Modern Era.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Clinical Indications and Impact on Management: Fourth and Subsequent Posttherapy Follow-upJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy and value of the fourth and subsequent post-therapy follow-up fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT) scans in the clinical assessment of breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety-two female patients, with a total of 426 fourth and subsequent follow-up PET/CT scans, were retrospectively included. Patients were followed for a median of 23.7 months (range, 0.7-124.4) from the fourth follow-up PET/CT. The diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT, its impact on clinical assessment, patients' management, and survival outcome were established.
resultOf the 426 follow-up PET/CT scans, 264 (62%) were interpreted as positive and 162 (38%) were interpreted as negative. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the fourth and subsequent follow-up PET/CT scans were 97.7, 98.1, 98.8, 96.3, and 97.9%, respectively. Fourth and subsequent follow-up PET/CT were useful in excluding a tumor in 13.4% (39/292) of patients with a clinical suspicion of recurrence and identifying suspected recurrence in 10.5% (14/134) of patients without previous clinical suspicion. A change in management was noted in 6.7% (9/134) of scan times when the scans were performed without previous clinical suspicion of recurrence or therapy response and was 27.7% (81/292) when the scans were performed with clinical suspicion. Overall survival differed significantly between patients with all negative follow-up scans (n=23) and those who had at least one positive follow-up scan (n=69) (hazard ratio of 4.65, P<0.001).
conclusionThe fourth and subsequent PET/CT scans performed after the completion of primary treatment led to a change in management in 27.7% of patients when the scans were performed with clinical suspicion and only in 6.7% of patients when performed without clinical suspicion or context.
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.