ArticleNuclear medicine and molecular imaging2016
Clinical Value of a One-Stop-Shop Low-Dose Lung Screening Combined with (18)F-FDG PET/CT for the Detection of Metastatic Lung Nodules from Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comprehensive analysis of expression profiles of long non‑coding RNAs with associated ceRNA network involved in gastric cancer progression.Molecular medicine reports · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of additional low-dose high-resolution lung computed tomography (LD-HRCT) combined with (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography with CT ((18)F-FDG PET/CT) compared with conventional lung setting image of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of metastatic lung nodules from colorectal cancer.
methodsFrom January 2011 to September 2011, 649 patients with colorectal cancer underwent additional LD-HRCT at maximum inspiration combined with (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Forty-five patients were finally diagnosed to have lung metastasis based on histopathologic study or clinical follow-up. Twenty-five of the 45 patients had ≤5 metastatic lung nodules and the other 20 patients had >5 metastatic nodules. One hundred and twenty nodules in the 25 patients with ≤5 nodules were evaluated by conventional lung setting image of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and by additional LD-HRCT respectively. Sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic accuracies, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) of conventional lung setting image of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and additional LD-HRCT were calculated using standard formulae. The McNemar test and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were performed.
resultsOf the 120 nodules in the 25 patients with ≤5 metastatic lung nodules, 66 nodules were diagnosed as metastatic. Eleven of the 66 nodules were confirmed histopathologically and the others were diagnosed by clinical follow-up. Conventional lung setting image of (18)F-FDG PET/CT detected 40 of the 66 nodules and additional LD-HRCT detected 55 nodules. All 15 nodules missed by conventional lung setting imaging but detected by additional LD-HRCT were <1 cm in size. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the modalities were 60.6 %, 85.2 %, and 71.1 % for conventional lung setting image and 83.3 %, 88.9 %, and 85.8 % for additional LD-HRCT. By ROC analysis, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of conventional lung setting image and additional LD-HRCT were 0.712 and 0.827 respectively.
conclusionAdditional LD-HRCT with maximum inspiration was superior to conventional lung setting image of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of metastatic lung nodules from colorectal cancer (P < 0.05).
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.