ArticleCancers2020
Follow-Up 18F-FDG PET/CT versus Contrast-Enhanced CT after Ablation of Liver Metastases of Colorectal Carcinoma-A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in Cancers, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Future directions of image-guided thermal ablation in colorectal cancer lung oligometastases.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Preoperative risk stratification of colorectal high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia based on endoscopic biopsy: superior performance ofQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Consensus Statements for Clinical Practice in Advanced/Metastatic Colorectal Cancers in India Using a Modified Delphi Method.South Asian journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Advances in PET/CT Imaging for Breast Cancer Patients and Beyond.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Local Ablation and Surgery for Liver Metastases of Oligometastatic Colorectal Cancer.Cancers · 2021Article
- Identify. Quantify. Predict. Why Immunologists Should Widely Use Molecular Imaging for Coronavirus Disease 2019.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAfter a percutaneous ablation of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), follow-up investigations to evaluate potential tumor recurrence are necessary. The aim of this study was to analyze whether a combined 18F-Fluordesoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) scan is cost-effective compared to a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) scan for detecting local tumor progression. MATERIALS AND
methodsA decision model based on Markov simulations that estimated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was developed. Model input parameters were obtained from the recent literature. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of diagnostic parameters based on a Monte-Carlo simulation with 30,000 iterations was performed. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) was set to $100,000/QALY.
resultsIn the base-case scenario, CE-CT resulted in total costs of $28,625.08 and an efficacy of 0.755 QALYs, whereas 18F-FDG PET/CT resulted in total costs of $29,239.97 with an efficacy of 0.767. Therefore, the corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 18F-FDG PET/CT was $50,338.96 per QALY indicating cost-effectiveness based on the WTP threshold set above. The results were stable in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
conclusionBased on our model, 18F-FDG PET/CT can be considered as a cost-effective imaging alternative for follow-up investigations after percutaneous ablation of colorectal liver metastases.
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.