Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34526364›Full record

Observational studyClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2021

Diagnostic Accuracy of FEC-PET/CT, FDG-PET/CT, and Diffusion-Weighted MRI in Detection of Nodal Metastases in Surgically Treated Endometrial and Cervical Carcinoma.

Andrea G Rockall, Tara D Barwick, William Wilson, Naveena Singh, Nishat Bharwani, Aslam Sohaib, Marielle Nobbenhuis, Victoria Warbey, Marc Miquel, Dow-Mu Koh and 11 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Diagnostic performance of quantitative measures from [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Retrospective analysis of theRadiation oncology (London, England) · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

21 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea G Rockall *Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. a.rockall@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8270-5597
Tara D Barwick *Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9776-8766
William WilsonCancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, United Kingdom.
Naveena SinghDepartment of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Nishat BharwaniDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6236-1480
Aslam SohaibDepartment of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7774-9886
Marielle NobbenhuisDepartment of Gynaeoncology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Victoria WarbeyDepartment of Radiology, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Marc MiquelClinical Physics, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2209-2076
Dow-Mu KohDepartment of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7654-8011
Katja N De PaepeDepartment of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2891-7545
Pierre Martin-HirschRoyal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0520-0066
Sadaf Ghaem-MaghamiDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Christina FotopoulouDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6375-9645
Helen StringfellowRoyal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, United Kingdom.
Sudha SundarPan Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre, City Hospital and Insitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Ranjit ManchandaWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine QMUL, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3381-5057
Anju SahdevDepartment of Radiology, St Bartholomews Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Allan HackshawCancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, United Kingdom.
Gary J CookCancer Imaging Department, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8732-8134
MAPPING Study Group
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBCancer Research UK · GBLancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GBLawson Health Research Institute · CANIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBSt Bartholomew's Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 12783Cancer Research UK C444/A15953Department of Health [UK] C1519/A16463
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePreoperative nodal staging is important for planning treatment in cervical cancer and endometrial cancer, but remains challenging. We compare nodal staging accuracy of EXPERIMENTAL

designA prospective, multicenter observational study of diagnostic accuracy for nodal metastases was undertaken in 5 gyne-oncology centers. FEC-PET/CT, FDG-PET/CT, and DW-MRI were compared with nodal size and morphology on MRI. Reference standard was strictly correlated nodal histology. Eligibility included operable cervical cancer stage ≥ 1B1 or endometrial cancer (grade 3 any stage with myometrial invasion or grade 1-2 stage ≥ II).

resultsAmong 162 consenting participants, 136 underwent study DW-MRI and FDG-PET/CT and 60 underwent FEC-PET/CT. In 118 patients, 267 nodal regions were strictly correlated at histology (nodal positivity rate, 25%). Sensitivity per patient (

conclusionsAll imaging techniques had low sensitivity for detection of nodal metastases and cannot replace surgical nodal staging. The performance of FEC-PET/CT was not statistically different from other techniques that are more widely available. FDG-PET/CT had higher sensitivity than size in detecting nodal metastases. False positive rates were low across all methods. The low false positive rate demonstrated by FDG-PET/CT may be helpful in arbitration of challenging surgical planning decisions.

Indexed as

Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm StagingPositron-Emission TomographyProspective StudiesRadiopharmaceuticalsTomography, X-Ray ComputedFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID34526364
PMCPMC9401562
OpenAlexW3198937635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.