ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology2020
Restaging [
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surveillance Imaging in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis Informing Surveillance Recommendations.Research square · 2026Article
- Management of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: Radiologists Challenging and Risk Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- PET-CT in Clinical Adult Oncology-VI. Primary Cutaneous Cancer, Sarcomas and Neuroendocrine Tumors.Cancers · 2022Review
- Prognostic value ofThe British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Imaging findings of malignant skin tumors: radiological-pathological correlation.Insights into imaging · 2022Review
- FDG-PET/CT imaging for evaluating durable responses to immune check point inhibitors in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are no specific recommendations for [
objectiveTo evaluate FDG-PET/CT in recurrent cSCC.
methodsFDG-PET/CT scans were retrospectively reviewed. Sites of abnormal uptake were noted and correlated with biopsy/histopathology studies, where available, and with follow-up imaging or clinical data in others. Comparison with available CT/magnetic resonance imaging was performed. The prognostic significance of PET/CT parameters was evaluated, and PET/CT-based change in management was recorded.
resultsA total of 115 FDG-PET/CT scans were analyzed in 100 consecutive patients with cSCC. Of these, 96 (84%) scans were positive for recurrence, and 25 showed distant metastases. PET/CT detected unsuspected disease sites in 39 of 115 scans (34%), locoregional disease in 14, distant metastases in 11, both locoregional disease and distant metastases in 8, additional local cutaneous disease in 5, and second malignancy in 1. Comparison of 78 PET/CT scans with available CT/magnetic resonance imaging showed 37 additional abnormalities on 23 PET/CT scans, predominantly including skin/subcutaneous lesions and nodes. PET/CT led to change in management in 28% of patients. On univariate/multivariate analysis, increased number of FDG-positive lesions and lung metastases on PET/CT was associated with increased risk of death/disease progression. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study.
conclusionsFDG-PET/CT was sensitive in detecting recurrent disease in cSCC, led to change in management for 28% of patients, and proved to be of prognostic value.
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.