ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2019
The value of using fludeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography scan with respect to colorectal abnormalities-a cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in spinal infections: A comprehensive diagnostic tool.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Colonoscopy following the positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan in patients with incidental colorectal uptake: what is the most effective management?Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFludeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET) shows colic uptake regularly. Complementary colonoscopy is done. Aim: study the findings of colonoscopy.
methodsAll consecutive scans in 5 years were studied. Focal FDG uptake in colon and/or rectum were scored as + or ++. Clinical files and endoscopy reports were studied for final diagnosis.
resultsFocal FDG uptake was noted in 173 out of 2,075 scans (8.4%). Focal FDG activity was judged ++ in 73 patients (42.2%) and + in 100 (57.8%). The majority of colorectal cancers scored ++. Patients with ++ activity underwent or had undergone significantly more often a colonoscopy compared with patients with + activity, 82% versus 65% (P=0.02). FDG PET/CT was false positive with respect to polyp(s) or cancer in 13 cases (22%) of ++ FGD activity and in 38 cases of + FDG (P<0.001). In 25 patients a total of 69 polyps were not FDG avid.
conclusionsFDG-PET scanning is a useful tool in oncology. However, false-positive and false-negative findings with respect to colonic uptake are present in a significant number of patients. If the clinical condition and the potential prognosis allows the performance of colonoscopy this procedure should be done.
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.