Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29623475›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2018

Diagnostic value of FDG-PET/CT for lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

S Ishihara, K Kawai, T Tanaka, T Kiyomatsu, K Hata, H Nozawa, T Morikawa, T Watanabe

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. IsContrast media & molecular imaging · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S IshiharaDepartment of Surgery, Sanno Hospital, International University of Health and Welfare, 8-10-16 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
K KawaiDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
T TanakaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
T KiyomatsuDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
K HataDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
H NozawaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
T MorikawaDepartment of Pathology, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
T WatanabeDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. toshwatanabe@yahoo.co.jp.
University of Tokyo Hospital · JPInternational University of Health and Welfare · JP

Funding

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development 16cm0106502h0001Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 16H02672Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 16K07143Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 16K07161
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to elucidate the diagnostic value of

methodsEighteen rectal cancer patients with enlarged (≥ 8 mm) LPNs were treated with CRT followed by total mesorectal excision with LPN dissection during 2012-2015. After CRT, LPN maximum standard uptake values (SUVmax) were measured using PET/CT and long diameters of LPNs were measured using CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). LPN size and SUVmax were compared with pathological status in the resected specimen. Radiologically identified nodes were matched with surgically resected nodes by separate examination of 4 lymph nodal regions: internal iliac, obturator, external iliac and common iliac lymph nodes.

resultsIn total, 34 LPNs were located by CT or MRI. Metastatic LPNs were significantly larger than non-metastatic LPNs (size, mean ± standard deviation: 13.0 ± 8.3 vs. 4.9 ± 3.5 mm, p < 0.01). SUVmax was determinable for 28 of the LPNs, among which metastatic LPNs were found to have significantly higher SUVmax than non-metastatic LPNs (mean ± standard deviation: 2.2 ± 1.3 vs. 1.2 ± 0.3, p < 0.01). Receiver operating characteristic analysis suggested optimal cutoff values of size = 12 mm which had an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 82.1, 70.6, 100, 100, and 68.8%, respectively. An SUVmax = 1.6 had an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 85.7, 76.5, 100, 100, and 73.3%, respectively. When LPNs that were ≥ 12 mm in size and/or had an SUV ≥ 1.6, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 92.9, 88.2, 100, 100, and 84.6%, respectively.

conclusionsAfter CRT, PET/CT alone or in combination with CT and MRI can predict the presence of metastatic LPN with a high degree of accuracy. PET/CT may be useful in selecting patients with rectal cancer who would benefit from LPN dissection in addition to TME. These results need to be confirmed by larger studies.

Indexed as

AdultAgedChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedPelvisPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPredictive Value of TestsPreoperative CareRadiopharmaceuticalsRectal NeoplasmsFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsChemoradiotherapyLateral pelvic lymph nodePositron emission tomographyRectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID29623475
OpenAlexW2795807562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.