ArticleIntestinal research2017
Diagnostic and prognostic value of preoperative
Article in Intestinal research, 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Status and Challenges of Imaging-Based Diagnosis of Lymph Node Metastasis in Colon Cancer: The Lymph Node Committee of the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Prognostic Value of Serum Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio and SUVmax in Stage I and II Colon Cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Investigating ultra-low-dose total-body [18F]-FDG PET/CT in colorectal cancer: initial experience.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Tailoring the clinical management of colorectal cancer byFrontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Clinical TNM staging for esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancers in the era of neoadjuvant therapy: A systematic review of the literature.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2021Review
- Preoperative evaluation and indications for pulmonary metastasectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Review
- Preoperative PET/CTContrast media & molecular imaging · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aims
methodsWe investigated 220 patients who underwent preoperative FDG-PET/CT and CT, followed by curative surgery for CRC. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of FDG-PET/CT and CT for detection of lymph node metastasis and distant metastasis were evaluated. In addition, we assessed the findings of FDG-PET/CT and CT according to outcomes, including cancer recurrence and cancer-related death, for evaluation of prognostic value.
resultsFor detection of lymph node metastasis, FDG-PET/CT had a sensitivity of 44%, a specificity of 84%, and an accuracy of 67%, compared with 59%, 65%, and 62%, respectively, for CT (
conclusionsPreoperative FDG-PET/CT had a higher specificity and accuracy compared to CT for detection of lymph node metastasis and distant metastasis of CRC. In addition, FDG-PET/CT could be a valuable prognostic tool for CRC.
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.