Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31044265›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2019

Independent and incremental value of ventilation/perfusion PET/CT and CT pulmonary angiography for pulmonary embolism diagnosis: results of the PECAN pilot study.

Pierre-Yves Le Roux, Amir Iravani, Jason Callahan, Kate Burbury, Peter Eu, Daniel P Steinfort, Eddie Lau, Beverly Woon, Pierre-Yves Salaun, Rodney J Hicks and 1 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Molecular imaging and biology · 2021
    Article
  11. Fully AutomatedFrontiers in nuclear medicine · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Pierre-Yves Le RouxCancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. pierre-yves.leroux@chu-brest.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8534-8203
Amir IravaniCancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Jason CallahanCancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Kate BurburyDepartment of Haematology and Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Peter EuCancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Daniel P SteinfortRespiratory Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Eddie LauCancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Beverly WoonCancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Pierre-Yves SalaunNuclear Medicine, Brest University Hospital, EA3878 (GETBO) IFR 148, Brest, France.
Rodney J HicksCancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael S HofmanCancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. Michael.hofman@petermac.org.
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUCentre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest · FRThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis pilot study assessed the independent and incremental value of

methodsAll 24 cancer patients with suspected acute PE prospectively recruited underwent both

resultsThe diagnostic conclusion was concordantly negative in 18 patients (75%). Of the six discordant diagnoses on independent reading, combined interpretation of V/Q PET/CTPA enabled a consensus conclusion in two patients, excluding PE in one and confirming PE in the other, similar to the initial diagnostic conclusion of the V/Q PET/CT. Of the remaining four patients, three had a single subsegmental thrombus on CTPA but a negative V/Q PET/CT scan, and two of these did not receive long-term anticoagulation and did not have a venous thromboembolic event during a 3-year follow-up period. The third patient, along with a patient with a positive V/Q PET/CT scan but a negative CTPA scan, presented with acute complications preventing any conclusions with regard to the appropriateness of the V/Q PET/CT results in the management of PE. Overall, V/Q PET had an impact on management in four patients (17%).

conclusionIn this pilot study, we demonstrated the feasibility and potential utility of V/Q PET/CT for the management of patients with suspected PE. V/Q PET/CT may be of particular relevance in patients with equivocal findings or isolated subsegmental findings on CTPA, adding further discriminatory information to allow important decision-making regarding the use or withholding of anticoagulation. Given the other advantages of V/Q PET/CT (reduced acquisition time, low radiation dose), and with the increasing availability of

Indexed as

AdultAgedComputed Tomography AngiographyFemaleGallium RadioisotopesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerfusion ImagingPilot ProjectsPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPulmonary EmbolismRadiopharmaceuticalsGallium RadioisotopesRadiopharmaceuticalsCT pulmonary angiographyGallium-68Pulmonary embolismV/Q PET/CT

Identifiers

PMID31044265
OpenAlexW2943413946

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.