ArticleMedicine2018
The role of dual time point PET/CT for distinguishing malignant from benign focal 18F-FDG uptake duodenal lesions.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of F-18 FDG PET/CT in differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024Pooled it
- NIPU: a randomised, open-label, phase II study evaluating nivolumab and ipilimumab combined with UV1 vaccination as second line treatment in patients with malignant mesothelioma.Journal of translational medicine · 2021Trial
- Dual-Time-PointBMC cancer · 2025Article
- Convoluted Neural Network for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer onNuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Role of multiple dual-phaseHeliyon · 2023Article
- Application of Imaging Indicators Based onFrontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Radiomics model of dual-time 2-[European radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic criteria of dual time point Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in differentiating malignant from benign focal hypermetabolic lesions of duodenum.A total of 50 patients underwent F-FDG PET/CT at 2 points: 60 ± 13.7 minutes (early imaging) and 120 ± 26.4 minutes (delayed imaging) after tracer injection. Early maximum standardized uptake value (SUVE), delayed maximum standardized uptake value (SUVD), difference between early and delayed maximum standardized uptake value (D-SUVmax), and retention index (RI) were calculated for each duodenal lesion. Receiver operating characteristic analysis (ROC) was performed to evaluate the discriminating validity of the parameters.There were 32 malignant and 18 benign focal F-FDG uptake duodenal lesions. The values of SUVE, SUVD, and D-SUVmax were significantly different between malignant and benign lesions (12.5 ± 6.3 vs 5.8 ± 1.2, 13.5 ± 6.5 vs 5.5 ± 1.1 and 0.3 ± 0.8 vs 1.0 ± 1.0, respectively). The areas under the curves (AUCs) of SUVE, SUVD, D-SUVmax were 0.932, 0.964 and 0.707, respectively. There was no significantly difference between SUVE and SUVD based on AUC. In detecting malignant lesions, SUVE=6.9 yielded a sensitivity of 88.9% and specificity of 84.4%, SUVD=7.2 yielded a sensitivity of 94.6% and specificity of 90.6%, D-SUVmax=0.5 yielded a sensitivity of 72.2% and specificity of 68.8%. SUVD was the best diagnostic indicator, regarding specificity and specificity.SUVE and SUVD had good sensitivity, specificity for differentiating duodenal lesions. But there was no significantly difference between diagnostic value of SUVE and SUVD. F-FDG uptake patterns are helpful for differentiating benign and malignant duodenal lesions.
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.