ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2020
Does PET/CT Aid in Detecting Primary Carcinoma in Patients with Skeletal Metastases of Unknown Primary?
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging of cancer of unknown primary: a systematic literature review of the past, present, and future.The British journal of radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Identifying the primary tumour in patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) using [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Pooled it
- Oncologic Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning Methods in CT Spine Imaging-A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- Article
- What's new in the management of metastatic bone disease.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2021Review
- CORR Insights®: Does PET/CT Aid in Detecting Primary Carcinoma in Patients with Skeletal Metastases of Unknown Primary?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients older than 40 years presenting with osteolytic bone lesions are likely to have a diagnosis of carcinoma, even if they had no prior cancer diagnosis. For patients with no prior cancer diagnosis, there is a well-accepted algorithm to determine a potential primary site. That algorithm, however, leaves approximately 15% of people without a detectable primary tumor site, making treatment decisions extremely difficult. Positron emission tomography (PET) fused with CT, more commonly known as PET/CT, has emerged as an important staging modality for many other malignancies but has been used in a very limited fashion in musculoskeletal oncology. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked (1) What is the ability of PET/CT to detect the source of the primary tumor in patients with a skeletal metastasis of unknown primary? (2) How does PET/CT perform in detecting metastases in other sites in patients with a skeletal metastasis of unknown primary?
methodsA retrospective analysis between 2006 and 2016 of the pathology database of a single tertiary center identified 35 patients with a biopsy-proven skeletal metastasis (histologically confirmed carcinoma or adenocarcinoma) and a PET/CT scan that was performed after the standard diagnostic evaluation of the primary cancer site. Patients were identified through use of our pathology database to identify all biopsy-proven bone carcinomas. This was then cross referenced with our imaging database to identify all patients who were at any time evaluated with PET/CT. During this time, we identified 1075 patients with biopsy-proven metastatic bone disease through our pathology database. Any indication for a PET/CT was included, and was most often done for staging of the identified malignancy or evaluation for the unknown source. Data regarding the ability of PET/CT to find or confirm the primary cancer and all metastatic sites were evaluated. The standard diagnostic evaluation (history and physical, laboratory evaluation, CT of the chest/abdomen/pelvis and whole body bone scan) identified the primary cancer in 22 of the 35 patients. Among the 35 patients, there were a total of 176 metastatic sites of disease identified, with 115 identified with the standard diagnostic evaluation (before PET/CT).
resultsAmong patients with a skeletal metastasis of unknown primary, PET/CT was unable to identify the primary cancer in 12 of 13 patients. PET/CT confirmed the site of the known primary cancer in all 22 patients. There were 176 total metastatic sites. Of the 115 metastases known before PET/CT, PET/CT failed to identify three of 115 (3% false-negative rate).
conclusionsPET/CT may not provide any additional benefit over the standard evaluation for identification of the primary cancer in patients with a skeletal metastasis of unknown primary, although it may have efficacy as a screening tool equivalent or superior to the standard diagnostic algorithm for evaluation of the overall metastatic burden in these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.
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.