ArticleClinical nuclear medicine2020
One-by-One Comparison of Lymph Nodes Between 18F-FDG Uptake and Pathological Diagnosis in Esophageal Cancer.
Article in Clinical nuclear medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updated evidence on the accuracy ofQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Review
- Development of a predictive model for lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer usingJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Initial demonstration of the Scratch-PET concept: an intraoperative PET with a hand-held detector.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Radiation source detection for the accurate location of lymph node metastases using robotic forceps-type coincidence radiation detector.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
- The diagnostic value of dual-layer CT in the assessment of lymph nodes in lymphoma patients with PET/CT as a reference standard.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Comparison of [Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEsophagectomy with extended lymph node (LN) dissection is a standard treatment for resectable esophageal cancer to prevent recurrence, but severe, potentially life-threatening postoperative complications are still important issues. Accurate diagnosis of LN metastases would enable the decision to dissect or leave the LNs in regions with high risk of complications. Advancements in intraoperative gamma probe and radioactivity detectors have made intraoperative navigation surgery possible using a radiotracer as a marker. F-FDG is one such candidate markers, and the diagnostic power of FDG through counting the radioactivity close to each LN should be elucidated. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn 20 patients, 1073 LNs including 38 metastatic LNs were prospectively investigated. Preoperative FDG PET was performed on the same day before esophagectomy and visually surveyed in each LN station to identify abnormal uptake. The FDG radioactivity of each individual dissected LN was measured by a well-type counter, and the pathological diagnosis was compared with LN radioactivity on a one-by-one basis and with the preoperative FDG PET findings for each LN station.
resultsLymph node station-based analysis showed a sensitivity and specificity of 28.6% and 96.7%, respectively. One-by-one LN-based analysis using a cutoff value obtained from the receiver operating characteristic curve showed a sensitivity and specificity of 94.7% and 78.7%, respectively, demonstrating higher accuracy compared with the use of LN weight or the shortest diameter.
conclusionsThe FDG uptake by each LN is a potentially useful marker for navigation surgery in esophageal cancer and has higher accuracy than LN weight or diameter.
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.