Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34336643›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021

Updated Trends in Imaging Practices for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (PNETs): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis to Pave the Way for Standardization in the New Era of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence.

Ephraïm Partouche, Randy Yeh, Thomas Eche, Laura Rozenblum, Nicolas Carrere, Rosine Guimbaud, Lawrence O Dierickx, Hervé Rousseau, Laurent Dercle, Fatima-Zohra Mokrane

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Ephraïm PartoucheRadiology Department, Rangueil University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Randy YehMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service., New York, NY, United States.
Thomas EcheRadiology Department, Rangueil University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Laura RozenblumSorbonne Université, Service de Médecine Nucléaire, AP-HP, Hôpital La Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Nicolas CarrereSurgery Department, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Rosine GuimbaudOncology Department, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Lawrence O DierickxNuclear Medicine Department, IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France.
Hervé RousseauRadiology Department, Rangueil University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Laurent DercleDepartment of Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Vagellos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, United States.
Fatima-Zohra MokraneRadiology Department, Rangueil University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Hôpital Rangueil · FRUniversité de Toulouse · FRInstitut universitaire du cancer de Toulouse Oncopole · FRMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USPresbyterian Hospital · USSorbonne Université · FR

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMedical imaging plays a central and decisive role in guiding the management of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs). Our aim was to synthesize all recent literature of PNETs, enabling a comparison of all imaging practices.

methodsbased on a systematic review and meta-analysis approach, we collected; using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases; all recent imaging-based studies, published from December 2014 to December 2019. Study quality assessment was performed by QUADAS-2 and MINORS tools.

results161 studies consisting of 19852 patients were included. There were 63 'imaging' studies evaluating the accuracy of medical imaging, and 98 'clinical' studies using medical imaging as a tool for response assessment. A wide heterogeneity of practices was demonstrated: imaging modalities were: CT (57.1%, n=92), MR (42.9%, n=69), PET/CT (13.3%, n=31), and SPECT/CT (9.3%, n=15). International imaging guidelines were mentioned in 2.5% (n=4/161) of studies. In clinical studies, imaging protocol was not mentioned in 30.6% (n=30/98) of cases and only mentioned imaging modality without further information in 63.3% (n=62/98), as compared to imaging studies (1.6% (n=1/63) of (p<0.001)). QUADAS-2 and MINORS tools deciphered existing biases in the current literature.

conclusionWe provide an overview of the updated current trends in use of medical imaging for diagnosis and response assessment in PNETs. The most commonly used imaging modalities are anatomical (CT and MRI), followed by PET/CT and SPECT/CT. Therefore, standardization and homogenization of PNETs imaging practices is needed to aggregate data and leverage a big data approach for Artificial Intelligence purposes.

Indexed as

computed tomogaphyimaging practicesmeta-analysisMRIpancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs)PET - positron emission tomographysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34336643
PMCPMC8316992
OpenAlexW3179776345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.