ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021
A Comparative Study between 18F-FDG PET/CT and Conventional Imaging in the Evaluation of Progressive Disease and Recurrence in Ovarian Carcinoma.
Article in Healthcare (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, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of the diagnostic value ofFrontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Enhanced detection of ovarian cancer using AI-optimized 3D CNNs for PET/CT scan analysis.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025Article
- Early Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of the Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT for the Management of Gynecological Malignancies: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.Journal of imaging · 2023Review
- Application of PET/CT in Preoperative Evaluation and Diagnosis of Gastric Cancer.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare the efficiency of conventional imaging and 18F-FDG PET-CT in detecting progressive disease and recurrences over a period of one year (2018), in the case of ovarian cancer, and also to assess the importance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in changing the course of the treatment for these patients. This study included 29 patients diagnosed in various stages with ovarian carcinoma, most of them of epithelial origin. All patients were evaluated throughout their treatment using 18F-FDG PET/CT and various conventional techniques (computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), abdominal and intravaginal ultrasound, chest X-ray). PET/CT was more useful and effective in our group of patients in detecting progressive disease compared with conventional imaging (37.93% vs. 17.24%) and also in establishing the recurrences (24.14% vs. 6.90%). Moreover, F18-FDG PET-CT led to a therapeutic change in 55.17% of the patients of our group, compared with only 17.24% after conventional imaging. This underlines the crucial aspect of the metabolic changes of tumors that should be assessed alongside the morphological ones, with PET-CT imaging remaining the only viable tool for achieving that at present. PET/CT with 18F-FDG represents one of the most important imaging techniques used in the diagnosis and management of ovarian carcinoma. Our results seem to fall in line with what other authors reported, indicating that 18F-FDG PET-CT is potentially gaining more ground in the management of ovarian carcinoma, by influencing therapeutic strategies and by being able to detect relapse and progression accurately.
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.