ArticleNuclear medicine communications2017
Post-treatment 18F-FDG-PET/CT versus contrast-enhanced CT in patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparative effectiveness study.
Article in Nuclear medicine communications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- FDG-PET/CT improves detection of residual disease and reduces the need for examination under anaesthesia in oropharyngeal cancer patients treated with (chemo-)radiation.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the accuracy of same-day therapy-assessment PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) and conventional contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC).
methodsA total of 110 (95 men and 15 women; mean age 59 years) patients with biopsy-proven OPSCC were evaluated with same-day PET/CT and CECT pair scans as part of follow-up therapy assessment. Scans were performed within 6 months after the completion of primary treatment (median time: 3.1 months; range: 0.5-6 months). PET/CT and CECT scans were reviewed retrospectively for residual primary site disease, and right and left cervical lymph node involvement. Histopathology or 6 month clinical/imaging follow-up were used as the gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated for the primary site and cervical nodal disease.
resultsOf 110 OPSCC patients, 90.9% were human papilloma virus positive, 80.8% were stage 4, and 76.4% received chemoradiation as the primary treatment. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of PET/CT and CECT were similar in the evaluation of the primary cancer site (PET/CT: 75.0, 91.5, 25.0, 99.0, and 90.9, respectively, versus CECT: 75.0, 90.6, 23.1, 99.0, and 90.0, respectively). In evaluating cervical lymph node involvement, PET/CT appeared to have higher accuracy (96.8 vs. 81.7%), specificity (97.7 vs. 81.7%), and PPV (45.8 vs. 16.5%), comparable NPV (99.4% for both), and lower sensitivity (65 vs. 75%) compared with same-day CECT.
conclusionSame-day PET/CT and CECT scans had comparable accuracy in the evaluation of primary tumor sites after completion of therapy in patients with OPSCC. PET/CT showed higher accuracy in the evaluation of cervical lymph node involvement.
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.