ArticleNuclear medicine and molecular imaging2018
Evaluation of
Article in Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case Report: Multimodality imaging features and serial metabolic changes onFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Review of Non-Invasive Imaging Technologies for Cutaneous Melanoma.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Diagnostic Performance of [Cancers · 2024Review
- Nivolumab-induced systemic lymphadenopathy occurring during treatment of malignant melanoma: a case report.International journal of hematology · 2022Article
- Interference of COVID-19 Vaccination With PET/CT Leads to Unnecessary Additional Imaging in a Patient With Metastatic Cutaneous Melanoma-Case Report.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Computed tomography texture features can discriminate benign from malignant lymphadenopathy in pediatric patients: a preliminary study.Pediatric radiology · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate the value of
methodsWe evaluated patients with cutaneous melanoma who underwent FDG PET/CT for initial staging or recurrence evaluation. A total of 103 patients were enrolled, and 165 LNs were evaluated. LNs that were confirmed pathologically or by follow-up imaging were included in this study. PET parameters, including maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), total lesion glycolysis and tumour-to-liver ratio, were used to determine the presence of metastases, and the results were compared with CT-determined LN metastasis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the optimal cut-off values of the FDG PET parameters.
resultsA total of 93 LNs were malignant, and 84 LNs were smaller than 10 mm. In all 165 LNs, an SUVmax of >2.51 showed a sensitivity of 73.1%, a specificity of 88.9%, and an accuracy of 80.0% in detecting metastatic LNs. CT showed a higher specificity (87.3%) and lower accuracy (65.5%). For non-enlarged regional LNs (<10 mm), an SUVmax cut-off value of 1.4 showed the highest negative predictive value (81.3%). For enlarged LNs (≥10 mm), an SUVmax cut-off value of 2.4 showed the highest sensitivity (90.7%) and accuracy (88.9%) in detecting metastatic LNs.
conclusionsIn patients with cutaneous melanoma, an SUVmax of >2.4 showed a high sensitivity (91%) and accuracy (89%) in detecting metastasis in LNs ≥1 cm, and LNs <1 cm with an SUVmax <1.4 were likely to be benign.
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.