Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31579197›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of nuclear medicine : IJNM : the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, India

Diagnostic Accuracy of Dual-Time-Point Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Verification Local Recurrence in Pancreatic Cancer Patients.

Esraa El-Kholy, Lobna Khaled

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of nuclear medicine : IJNM : the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Clinical Impact ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Esraa El-KholyDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Lobna KhaledDepartment of Radiology, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Al-Azhar University · EGCairo University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of dual-time point in differentiating benign from malignant local recurrent lesions in pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND

methodsThirty-four patients with pancreatic cancer (22 males and 12 females, mean age: 58.3 ± 10.3) who presented with soft-tissue lesions at the operative bed. Early whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and delayed imaging on the abdomen were performed. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the initial image (SUVmax E) and the delayed image (SUVmax D) were determined. A Retention Index (RI) was also calculated. These indices were correlated with histopathology and follow-up as reference criteria.

resultsNo significant statistical difference in SUVmaxE was found between benign and malignant lesions, while SUVmaxD and RI of the malignant lesions (mean 8.6 ± 2.7 and 35.8 ± 18.3, respectively) were significantly higher than those of benign ones (mean 3.3 ± 1.4 and-6.2 ± 15.2, respectively) (

conclusionDual-time-point 18F fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT seems to be a reliable additional method to differentiate between malignant and benign postoperative local soft-tissue lesions in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Indexed as

Dual time pointfluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomographymaximum standardized uptake valuepancreatic lesionRetention Index

Identifiers

PMID31579197
PMCPMC6771199
OpenAlexW2975411702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.