ArticleMedicine2016
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound improves accurate identification of appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma in an old patient: A case report.
Article in Medicine, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdenocarcinoma of appendiceal origin is far rarer than other colorectal carcinomas and its preoperative diagnosis is challenging. To our knowledge, utility of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to diagnose it is much less.
methodA 61-year-old man presented with abdominal pain in the right lower quadrant for 20 days. In order to fulfill an accurately preoperative diagnosis, he received laboratory and imaging tests such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), computer tomography (CT), CEUS and endoscope. DIAGNOSIS AND
interventionHe was initially suspected of suffering appendicitis, while his white blood cell count was normal and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in serum was remarkably increased. Both routine ultrasound and computer tomography (CT) examinations supported suppurative appendicitis. The overall data, however, failed to excluded neoplastic pathology thoroughly. Therefore, CEUS was carried out and showed an inhomogeneous enhancement intra the lesion located in the body of the appendix, which made our consideration of neoplasm. The result of the follow-up biopsy guided by endoscope was consistent with appendiceal tumor. The patient received laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Histopathology confirmed as well differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma of appendix origin. His postoperative course was uneventful, and he had a regular diet again without any complaint.
resultSerum CEA was remarkably increased (12.00 ng/mL). Both routine ultrasound and CT examinations supported suppurative appendicitis. However, CEUS examination showed an inhomogeneous enhancement intra the lesion located in the body of the appendix, which made our consideration of neoplasm. The follow-up biopsy guided by endoscope and surgical specimens confirmed as well differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma of appendix origin.
conclusionMost mucinous adenocarcinoma mimicking appendicitis results in difficult diagnosis preoperatively. Clinician and radiologist should be aware of it when old patient presented with appendicitis especially along with high level of CEA.
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.