Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30538775›Full record

ArticleNuclear medicine and molecular imaging2018

FDG PET/CT and Conventional Imaging Methods in Cancer of Unknown Primary: an Approach to Overscanning.

Neslihan Cetin Avci, Filiz Hatipoglu, Ahmet Alacacıoglu, Emine Ebru Bayar, Gonca Gul Bural

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparison of PET-CT, CT and MRI scan in initial staging and management of head and neck cancers.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Neslihan Cetin Avci1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, Umraniye, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-2517-2274
Filiz Hatipoglu2Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey.
Ahmet Alacacıoglu3Department of Internal Medicine and Oncology, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey.
Emine Ebru Bayar2Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey.
Gonca Gul Bural4Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the performance of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) with conventional imaging methods (CIM), including computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and mammography (MMG) in cancer of unknown primary (CUP).

methodsA total of 36 patients with CUP, who referred to our clinic for a FDG PET/CT scan, were enrolled in this study. Thirty of the patients were also examined through either diagnostic CT/MRI and/or MMG. The diagnostic performance of both methods for the primary cancer location was analyzed. The results of FDG PET/CT and CIM were compared based on the standard reference of the histopathology and/or clinical and laboratory follow-up.

resultsThe primary cancer locations were detected in 24 patients (66.6%, 24/36) by FDG PET/CT, whereas CIM identified the locations in 16 patients (53.3%, 16/30). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy rates of the detection of the primary tumor localizations were as follows: 83, 70, 89, 58, and 79% for FDG PET/CT; 70, 62, 84, 42, and 68% for CIM, respectively. There was no statistical significance between modalities regarding any of the categories in 30 patients.

conclusionFDG PET/CT detected the primary tumors of the patients with CUP more than CIM did. However, the difference between them was not found to be statistically significant. It may be considered that FDG PET/CT scan can be performed as a first-line tool in the initial diagnosis of the patients with CUP and to add radiodiagnostic imaging in selective cases. We conclude that if the first-line examination of a CUP patient has been already performed by a CIM and the result was negative or inconclusive, FDG PET/CT can be considered to avoid unnecessary imaging procedures.

Indexed as

Cancer of unknown primary originCTFDG PET/CTMRIOncology

Identifiers

PMID30538775
PMCPMC6261859

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.