ArticlePloS one2017
Performance of 18F-fluorodesoxyglucose positron-emission tomography combined with low-dose computed tomography for cancer screening in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism.
Article in PloS one, 2017. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interobserver agreement ofThrombosis research · 2020Article
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 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSmall series have suggested that Fluorodesoxyglucose Positron-Emission-Tomography with Computed-Tomography (FDG-PET/CT) is feasible to screen for cancer in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE), but without validation in a large population. The aim was to assess diagnostic accuracy indices of FDG-PET/CT for occult cancer diagnosis in patients with unprovoked VTE. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analysed patients from the FDG-PET/CT group of a randomized trial that compared a screening strategy based on FDG-PET/CT with a limited screening strategy for occult malignancy detection in patients with unprovoked VTE. FDG-PET/CT was interpreted as positive for cancer, as negative or as equivocal. Patients were considered as having cancer on the basis of screening results, or of any test performed during a two-years follow-up period. We ran two sets of analysis, considering patients with equivocal FDG-PET/CT as positive, then as negative for malignancy.
resultsBetween March 2009, and August 2012, 172 patients were included. FDG-PET/CT was interpreted as positive for malignancy in 10 patients (5.8%), as equivocal in 23 patients (13.4%) and as negative in 139 patients (80.8%). Malignancy was diagnosed in 7/10 (70.0%), 2/23 (8.7%) and 1/139 (0.7%) patients, respectively. Grouping positive and equivocal results, sensitivity and specificity were 90% (95%CI 60% to 98%) and 85% (95%CI 79% to 90%), respectively. Grouping negative and equivocal results, sensitivity and specificity were 70% (95%CI 40% to 89%) and 98% (95%CI 95% to 99%), respectively.
conclusionFDG-PET/CT showed good accuracy for occult cancer screening in patients with unprovoked VTE. Remaining challenges include the need to define specific interpretation criteria in this dedicated population.
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.