Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30456182›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2018

Evaluation of lymph node status in patients with urothelial carcinoma-still in search of the perfect imaging modality: a systematic review.

Michał Frączek, Hubert Kamecki, Anna Kamecka, Roman Sosnowski, Katarzyna Sklinda, Marcin Czarniecki, Leszek Królicki, Jerzy Walecki

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Added-value of StagingMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Delayed post-diureticJournal of Cancer · 2020
    Article
  9. Review
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.

Michał FrączekDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center of Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland.
Hubert KameckiDepartment of Urogenital Cancer, Oncology Center-M. Skłodowska-Curie Institute, Warsaw, Poland.
Anna KameckaDepartment of Pediatric Radiology, Public Children's Teaching Hospital, Warsaw, Poland.
Roman SosnowskiDepartment of Urogenital Cancer, Oncology Center-M. Skłodowska-Curie Institute, Warsaw, Poland.
Katarzyna SklindaDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center of Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland.
Marcin CzarnieckiMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Leszek KrólickiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Jerzy WaleckiDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center of Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While accurate lymph node status evaluation in urothelial carcinoma patients is essential for the correct disease staging and, hence, establishing the most beneficial treatment strategy, the diagnostic performance of routine imaging in regards to this issue is not satisfactory. For the purpose of this article, we systematically reviewed the contemporary literature on the sensitivity and specificity of particular imaging modalities which have been studied for detecting lymph node metastases in patients diagnosed with urothelial carcinoma. The evidence reviewed shows that computed tomography (CT), although recognized as the imaging modality of choice, is associated with marked limitations, resulting in its low sensitivity for lymph node involvement detection in urothelial carcinoma patients, with no study reporting a value higher than 46% using standard cut-off values. Markedly higher sensitivity rates may be achieved with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), especially when using ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide as the contrast agent, however, no uniform protocol has been systematically studied up to date. The vast majority of recent evidence concerns positron emission tomography (PET), which is being reported to improve the diagnostic performance of CT alone, as has been demonstrated in multiple articles, which investigated the accuracy of PET/CT at primary or post-treatment staging of urothelial carcinoma patients. However, there has been substantial heterogeneity in terms of methodology and results between those studies, making it premature to draw any definitive conclusions. The results of this review lead to a conclusion, that while CT, despite being not fully satisfactory, still remains the gold-standard method of imaging for staging purposes in urothelial carcinoma, other imaging modalities are under investigation, with promising results.

Indexed as

bladder cancerlymph node involvementmagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)positron emission tomography (PET)Urothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID30456182
PMCPMC6212628

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.