ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2021
Oncologic significance of unexpected osseous foci on FDG-PET without correlative CT abnormalities.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur purpose was to explore the clinical significance of unexpected osseous foci on
methodsThis study is a retrospective review of 120 osseous FWCT, reported in 91 patients, and their corresponding clinical follow-up. We included only patients with at least 6 months of clinical follow-up leading to a final diagnosis, reviewing bone biopsy results, follow-up imaging, and clinical notes. We excluded those patients on active chemotherapy at the time of the scan. For reports describing > 3 foci, we only analyzed the one with highest maximum standardized uptake value (SUV
resultsOf 91 patients, 74 (81%) had biopsy-confirmed primary malignancies and 17 (19%) had suspicious findings on diagnostic imaging, but no proven primary malignancy. 50 of 120 (42%) osseous foci were malignant and 70 (58%) were benign. 49 of 120 (41%) foci were solitary and 71 (59%) were 0 with other foci (non-solitary). Malignancy resulted from 15/49 (31%) solitary foci and 35/71 (49%) non-solitary foci. Malignant lesions had a mean F/L 2.37 ± 0.397 and benign lesions a mean F/L 1.49 ± 0.169. Osseous malignancy correlated with a higher uptake intensity (Spearman = 0.408; P < 0.01) and was significantly associated with F/L ≥ 2.0 (P < 0.001). Osseous FWCT led to restaging and management modification in 12/91 (13%) patients.
conclusionOsseous FWCT frequently represent early stages of malignancy. A higher index of suspicion is warranted for osseous FWCT associated with underlying myeloproliferative neoplasms, breast and lung cancer, and moderate (F/L 1.0-2.0) or high (F/L > 2.0) uptake intensity. Interpreting physicians encountering these variables can recommend interval follow-up with
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.