ArticleNuclear medicine and molecular imaging2017
Article in Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interest ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- [Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Assessment of Suspected Malignancy or Infection in Immunocompromised Patients After Solid Organ Transplantation by [Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Performance ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- FDG PET/CT imaging in detecting and guiding management of invasive fungal infections: a retrospective comparison to conventional CT imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Article
- FDG-PET imaging to detect and characterize underlying causes of fever of unknown origin: an unavoidable path for the foreseeable future.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInfection and malignancy represent two common complications after solid organ transplantation, which are often characterized by poorly specific clinical symptomatology. Herein, we have evaluated the role of
methodsFifty-eight consecutive patients who underwent FDG PET/CT after kidney, lung or heart transplantation were included in this retrospective analysis. Twelve patients underwent FDG PET/CT to strengthen or confirm a diagnostic suspicion of malignancies. The remaining 46 patients presented with unexplained inflammatory syndrome, fever of unknown origin (FUO), CMV or EBV seroconversion during post-transplant follow-up without conclusive conventional imaging. FDG PET/CT results were compared to histology or to the finding obtained during a clinical/imaging follow-up period of at least 6 months after PET/CT study.
resultsPositive FDG PET/CT results were obtained in 18 (31 %) patients. In the remaining 40 (69 %) cases, FDG PET/CT was negative, showing exclusively a physiological radiotracer distribution. On the basis of a patient-based analysis, FDG PET/CT's sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were respectively 78 %, 90 %, 78 % and 90 %, with a global accuracy of 86 %. FDG PET/CT was true positive in 14 patients with bacterial pneumonias (n = 4), pulmonary fungal infection (n = 1), histoplasmosis (n = 1), cutaneous abscess (n = 1), inflammatory disorder (sacroiliitis) (n = 1), lymphoma (n = 3) and NSCLC (n = 3). On the other hand, FDG PET/CT failed to detect lung bronchoalveolar adenocarcinoma, septicemia, endocarditis and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), respectively, in four patients. FDG PET/CT contributed to adjusting the patient therapeutic strategy in 40 % of cases.
conclusionsFDG PET/CT emerges as a valuable technique to manage complications in the post-transplantation period. FDG PET/CT should be considered in patients with severe unexplained inflammatory syndrome or FUO and inconclusive conventional imaging or to discriminate active from silent lesions previously detected by conventional imaging particularly when malignancy is suspected.
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.