Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29365058›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2018

Colorectal cancer (CRC) monitoring by 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT: an open-label multicentre randomised trial.

I Sobhani, E Itti, A Luciani, I Baumgaertner, R Layese, T André, M Ducreux, J-M Gornet, G Goujon, T Aparicio and 17 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00624260 (Impact of PET Scan on the Curative Strategy of Colo-rectal Cancers), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT00624260 nacompletednot on this map

Impact of PET Scan on the Curative Strategy of Colo-rectal Cancers : A Randomized Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisRan2008 to 2015Enrolled240ConditionsColorectal CancerArmssemi-annual systematic PET-TDM, PET-TDM for current indication
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. A Rare Case of Colorectal Cancer With Delayed Metastasis to the Duodenum.Case reports in gastrointestinal medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Stage IV Colorectal Cancer Management and Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  10. Diagnostic value of [Frontiers in oncology · 2022
    Article
  11. The promising role and prognostic value of miR-198 in human diseases.American journal of translational research · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Colorectal peritoneal metastases: Optimal management review.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Role of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Gastrointestinal Malignancies: A Brief Review and Pictorial Essay.Indian journal of nuclear medicine : IJNM : the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, India
    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

27 authors.

I SobhaniEA7375 (EC2M3 Research Team), Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC)-Val de Marne, Créteil, France; Department of Gastroenterology, APHP-Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France. Electronic address: iradj.sobhani@aphp.fr.
E IttiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, APHP-Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.
A LucianiDepartment of Medical Imaging, APHP-Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.
I BaumgaertnerEA7375 (EC2M3 Research Team), Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC)-Val de Marne, Créteil, France.
R LayesePublic Health, Unité de Recherche Clinique (URC Mondor), APHP-Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France; CEpiA Clinical Epidemiology and Ageing Un, EA7376, Université Paris-Est (UPEC), A-TVB DHU, IMRB, Créteil, France.
T AndréSorbonnes University and Department of Medical Oncology, APHP-Hôpital St Antoine, Paris, France.
M DucreuxDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
J-M GornetDepartment of Gastroenterology, APHP-Hôpital St Louis, Paris, France.
G GoujonDepartment of Gastroenterology, APHP-Hôpital Bichat, Paris, France.
T AparicioDepartment of Gastroenterology, APHP-Hôpital Avicenne, Paris, France.
J TaiebDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology, APHP-Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.
J-B BachetDepartment of Gastroenterology and Medical Informatics, APHP-Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
F HemeryDepartment of Medical Informatics, APHP-Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.
A RetbiSorbonnes University and Department of Medical Oncology, APHP-Hôpital St Antoine, Paris, France.
M MonsDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
R FlicoteauxDepartment of Gastroenterology, APHP-Hôpital St Louis, Paris, France.
B RheinDepartment of Medical Informatics, Centre Hospitalier d'Intercommunal de Créteil, Créteil, France.
S BaronDepartment of Gastroenterology, APHP-Hôpital Avicenne, Paris, France.
I CherrakDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology, APHP-Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.
P RufatDepartment of Gastroenterology and Medical Informatics, APHP-Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
P Le CorvoisierClinical Investigations Centre, APHP-Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.
N de'AngelisEA7375 (EC2M3 Research Team), Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC)-Val de Marne, Créteil, France.
P-A NatellaPublic Health, Unité de Recherche Clinique (URC Mondor), APHP-Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.
H MaoulidaHealthcare Economics Research Unit, APHP, Paris, France, France.
C TournigandEA7375 (EC2M3 Research Team), Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC)-Val de Marne, Créteil, France.
I Durand ZaleskiHealthcare Economics Research Unit, APHP, Paris, France, France.
S Bastuji-GarinPublic Health, Unité de Recherche Clinique (URC Mondor), APHP-Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France; CEpiA Clinical Epidemiology and Ageing Un, EA7376, Université Paris-Est (UPEC), A-TVB DHU, IMRB, Créteil, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FDG-PET/CT) has high sensitivity for detecting recurrences of colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to determine whether adding routine 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT to our usual monitoring strategy improved patient outcomes and to assess the effect on costs. Patients and methods: In this open-label multicentre trial, patients in remission of CRC (stage II perforated, stage III, or stage IV) after curative surgery were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to usual monitoring alone (3-monthly physical and tumour marker assays, 6-monthly liver ultrasound and chest radiograph, and 6-monthly whole-body computed tomography) or with 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT, for 3 years. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed each patient's data every 3 months and classified the recurrence status as yes/no/doubtful. Recurrences were treated with curative surgery alone if feasible and with chemotherapy otherwise. The primary end point was treatment failure defined as unresectable recurrence or death. Relative risks were estimated, and survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox models. Direct costs were compared. Results: Of the 239 enrolled patients, 120 were in the intervention arm and 119 in the control arm. The failure rate was 29.2% (31 unresectable recurrences and 4 deaths) in the intervention group and 23.7% (27 unresectable recurrences and 1 death) in the control group (relative risk = 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.88; P = 0.34). The multivariate analysis also showed no significant difference (hazards ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.19; P = 0.27). Median time to diagnosis of unresectable recurrence (months) was significantly shorter in the intervention group [7 (3-20) versus 14.3 (7.3-27), P = 0.016]. Mean cost/patient was higher in the intervention group (18 192 ± 27 679 € versus 11 131 ± 13  €, P < 0.033). Conclusion: 18FDG-PET/CT, when added every 6 months, increased costs without decreasing treatment failure rates in patients in remission of CRC. The control group had very close follow-up, and any additional improvement (if present) would be small and hard to detect. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00624260.

Indexed as

AgedColorectal NeoplasmsCosts and Cost AnalysisFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18Follow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyFluorodeoxyglucose F18

Identifiers

PMID29365058
PMCPMC5913635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.