Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27401896›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2016

Impact on Patient Management of [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Used for Cancer Diagnosis: Analysis of Data From the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Rathan M Subramaniam, Anthony F Shields, Archana Sachedina, Lucy Hanna, Fenghai Duan, Barry A Siegel, Bruce E Hillner

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Impact ofEuropean journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Whole-Body [Scientific data · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

7 authors.

Rathan M SubramaniamJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA rathan.subramaniam@utsouthwestern.edu.
Anthony F ShieldsKarmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Archana SachedinaDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Lucy HannaCenter for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Fenghai DuanCenter for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Barry A SiegelDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Bruce E HillnerDepartment of Internal Medicine and the Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe assessed the impact of [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) on intended management of patients in the National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) for three different diagnostic indications: (a) determining whether a suspicious lesion is cancer (Dx), (b) detecting an unknown primary tumor site when there is confirmed or strongly suspected metastatic disease (cancer of unknown primary origin [CUP]), and (c) detecting a primary tumor site when there is a presumed paraneoplastic syndrome (PNS).

methodsWe reviewed a sample of randomly selected reports of NOPR subjects who underwent PET for Dx and CUP and all reports for PNS to find subjects for analysis. For these studies, we evaluated the impact of PET on referring physicians' intended management, based on their management plans reported before and after PET.

resultsIntended management was changed more frequently in the CUP group (43.1%) than in the Dx (23.9%) and PNS (25.4%) groups (CUP vs. Dx, p < .0001; PNS vs. Dx, p < .0001; CUP vs. PNS, p < .0002). Referring physicians reported that, in light of PET results, they were able to avoid further testing in approximately three-fourths of patients (71.8%-74.6%). At the time when the post-PET forms were completed, biopsies of suspicious sites had been performed in 21.2%, 32.4%, and 23.2%, respectively, of Dx, CUP, and PNS cases.

conclusionOur analysis of NOPR data shows that PET appears to have a substantial impact on intended management when used for three common diagnostic indications. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography appears to have a substantial impact on intended management when used for three targeted diagnostic indications: (a) determining whether a suspicious lesion is cancer, (b) detecting an unknown primary tumor site in a patient with confirmed or strongly suspected metastatic disease, and (c) detecting a primary tumor site in a patient with a presumed paraneoplastic syndrome.

Indexed as

Positron-Emission TomographyTomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNeoplasms, Unknown PrimaryParaneoplastic SyndromesRegistriesFluorodeoxyglucose F18Cancer diagnosisCancer of unknown primary originNational Oncologic PET RegistryParaneoplastic syndrome

Identifiers

PMID27401896
PMCPMC5016059

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.