ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Clinical and FDG-PET/CT Suspicion of Malignant Disease: Is Biopsy Confirmation Still Necessary?
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Not all masses are metastases: a diagnostic dilemma resolved - synchronous HER2-positive breast cancer and renal oncocytoma.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Insertion of synthetic lesions on patient data: a method for evaluating clinical performance differences between PET systems.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Clinical and Bronchoscopy Assessment in Diagnosing the Histopathology Type of Primary Central Lung Tumors.The open respiratory medicine journal · 2024Article
- Assessment of Tissue Adequacy by EBUS in Conjunction with PET Scan and Operator's Experience.Clinics and practice · 2022Article
- Cutting Staff Radiation Exposure and Improving Freedom of Motion during CT Interventions: Comparison of a Novel Workflow Utilizing a Radiation Protection Cabin versus Two Conventional Workflows.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiopsy of
methodsThis single-center retrospective study included 83 patients who had undergone FDG-PET/CT within 60 days before CT- or ultrasonography-guided tissue sampling and whose request form for CT- or US-guided tissue sampling requested mutation analyses. The latter implies a high clinical suspicion of active malignant disease. The nature of each biopsied lesion was determined based on the results of the pathological analysis and/or clinical and imaging follow-up of at least 12 months.
resultsIn total, eighty-eight FDG-avid lesions were biopsied. The PPV of FDG-PET/CT for malignancy was 98.9% (95% CI: 93.8-99.8%). For patients with an oncological history, the PPV was 98.7% (95% CI: 92.9-99.8%), and for patients with no oncological history, the PPV was 100% (95% CI: 74.1-100.0%). There was no significant difference between the PPV of the group with and without an oncological history (
conclusionAlthough the PPV of FDG-PET/CT for malignancy in patients with a clinical suspicion of active malignant disease is high, biopsy remains recommended to avoid inappropriate patient management due the non-negligible chance of dealing with FDG-avid benign disease or unexpected malignancies.
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.