Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28422888›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2017

18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of the primary tumor in adults with extracervical metastases from cancer of unknown primary: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Synne Alexandra Burglin, Søren Hess, Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen, Oke Gerke

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Identifying the primary tumour in patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) using [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Impact ofEuropean journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. FDG PET Hybrid Imaging.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Role ofWorld journal of nuclear medicine · 2025
    Article
  10. Utility ofClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. [Positron emission tomography in CUP syndrome].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Synne Alexandra BurglinaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital bDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C cDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Hospital South West Jutland, Esbjerg dCentre of Health Economics Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark.
Søren Hess
Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen
Oke Gerke
Odense University Hospital · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a heterogeneous group of cancers, so called when a biopsy from a patient reveals malignancy without giving a clue to where in the body the primary tumor is located. Whole-body 18-fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission-tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) is widely used for diagnosis and staging of most cancers. We hypothesized that 18F-FDG PET/CT-especially if used early-is suitable for the detection of the primary tumor in patients with CUP.

objectiveTo assess the ability of 18F-FDG PET/CT to detect the primary tumor in adult CUP patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies on CUP from extracervical metastases in which every patient had received an 18F-FDG PET/CT scan and at least one 18F-FDG PET/CT-positive finding was confirmed by biopsy or clinical follow-up. STUDY APPRAISAL: PRISMA and QUADAS-2 were applied. SYNTHESIS

methodsThe pooled detection rate (DR) of 18F-FDG PET/CT was assessed with a fixed-effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed with the I-squared statistic.

resultsA total of 2953 articles were identified from which N = 82 were assessed by full text and N = 20, comprising 1942 adult patients, were included in the study. Median (range) number of patients and DR was N = 72 (21-316) and 36.3% (9.8%-75.3%), respectively. Two-thirds of included studies were retrospective, and the pooled DR was 40.93% (95% confidence interval: 38.99%-42.87%). There was large heterogeneity between studies (I-squared = 95.9%), randomization was not applied, CUP diagnosis was not standardized, and workup (if described) was characterized by multiple testing procedures resulting in a highly selected, challenging patient group.

conclusionsDespite great heterogeneity in diagnostic workup and in studies in general, an overall DR of 40.93% suggests that upfront application of 18F-FDG PET/CT may have a role in CUP by obviating a great many futile diagnostic procedures. To what degree 18F-FDG PET/CT used early in the course of disease may improve the detection rate could not be deducted from selected articles. A large, prospective, preferably randomized, study on the potential benefit of using 18F-FDG PET/CT up front in CUP patients is warranted to judge if and when 18F-FDG PET/CT should be applied in these patients.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Unknown PrimaryPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyYoung AdultFluorodeoxyglucose F18

Identifiers

PMID28422888
PMCPMC5406105
OpenAlexW2606736073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.