Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29728085›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2018

PET/CT incidental detection of second tumor in patients investigated for pancreatic neoplasms.

Lucia Moletta, Sergio Bissoli, Alberto Fantin, Nicola Passuello, Michele Valmasoni, Cosimo Sperti

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Definitions of Incidental [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  3. Returning Incidental Research Findings FromArthritis care & research · 2024
    Article
  4. F-FDGRadiology case reports · 2022
    Article
  5. The clinical application ofTranslational cancer research · 2021
    Review
  6. Incidentalomas of the prostate detected by 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2020
    Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lucia MolettaDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, 3rd Surgical Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Sergio BissoliDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Castelfranco Veneto General Hospital, Castelfranco Veneto, Treviso, Italy.
Alberto FantinGastroenterology Unit, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Nicola PassuelloDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, 3rd Surgical Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Michele ValmasoniDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, 3rd Surgical Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Cosimo SpertiDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, 3rd Surgical Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. csperti@libero.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7869-8715
University of Padua · ITOspedale Castelfranco Veneto · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPositron Emission Tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is an imaging technique which has a role in the detection and staging malignancies (both in first diagnosis and follow-up). The finding of an unexpected region of FDG (Fluorodeoxyglucose) uptake can occur when performing whole-body FDG-PET, raising the possibility of a second primary tumor. The aim of this study was to evaluate our experience of second primary cancer incidentally discovered during PET/CT examination performed for pancreatic diseases, during the initial work-up or follow-up after surgical resection.

methodsIn this study, a retrospective evaluation of a prospectively collected data base was performed. Three hundred ninety- nine patients with pancreatic pathology were evaluated by whole body PET/CT imaging from January 2004 to December 2014. Among them, 348 patients were scanned before surgical resection and 51 during the course of their follow-up (pancreatic cancer). Median follow-up time was 29 months (range 14-124).

resultsFifty-six patients (14%) had incidental uptake of FDG in their organs: 31 patients had focal uptake and 25 showed diffuse with or without focal uptake. All patients with focal uptake were investigated, and invasive malignancy was diagnosed in 22 patients: 14 colon, 4 lung, 1 larynx, 1 urothelial, 1 breast cancer, and 1 colon metastasis from pancreatic cancer. Twenty patients underwent resection, and 6 endoscopic removal of colonic polyps. Three patients were not operated for advanced disease, and two patients did not show any pathology (PET/CT false positive). Of the 10 patients investigated for diffuse uptake, no malignancy was found; none of these patients developed a second cancer during the follow-up.

conclusionsAs in other malignancies, unexpected FDG uptake can occur in patients having PET/CT investigation for pancreatic diseases. Focal uptake is likely to be a malignancy and deserves further investigations, although the stage and the poor prognosis of primary pancreatic cancer should be kept in mind. Some selected patients may benefit from the aggressive treatment of incidental lesions and show survival benefit.

Indexed as

Incidental FindingsFluorodeoxyglucose F18Follow-Up StudiesHumansNeoplasms, Second PrimaryPancreasPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsPatient SelectionPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsRetrospective StudiesSurvival AnalysisFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsIncidentalomaPancreasPancreatic neoplasmsPositron emission tomographySurveillance

Identifiers

PMID29728085
PMCPMC5936016
OpenAlexW2807664032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.