Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35280825›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Is Performance of Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed tomography (CT) or Contrast-enhanced CT Efficient Enough to Guide the Hilar Lymph Node Staging for Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma?

Li Chu, Shuai Liu, Tiantian Guo, Liqing Zou, Bin Li, Jianjiao Ni, Xi Yang, Xiao Chu, Fei Liang, Yida Li and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. 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
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evaluation of PET-detected nodal upstaging and planning target volume expansion in esophageal cancer radiotherapy planning.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Li ChuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Shuai LiuDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Tiantian GuoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Liqing ZouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Bin LiInstitute of Thoracic Oncology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jianjiao NiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Xi YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Xiao ChuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Fei LiangDepartment of Biostatistics, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yida LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Yuyun SunDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Qiao LiDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Fang YinCenter for Drug Clinical Research, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Guodong LiInstitute of Thoracic Oncology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Zhengfei ZhuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University · CNShanghai Institute of Hematology · CNFudan University · CNFudan University Shanghai Cancer Center · CNShanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and contrast-enhanced CT in the detection of hilar lymph node metastasis (LNM) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) to determine their value in guiding hilar lymph node staging and delineating radiation target volume. Methods: Consecutive patients with ESCC who underwent both PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT before radical lymphadenectomy and esophagectomy at our institution from September 2009 to November 2018 were enrolled. The sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT for diagnosing hilar LNM were calculated. Results: Of the 174 patients included, contrast-enhanced CT predicted nine positive cases, while PET/CT predicted one, and eight (4.6%) were identified as pathologically positive for their resected hilar lymph nodes. The SE, SP, PPV, and NPV of PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT were 0.000, 0.994, 0.000, and 0.954; and 0.125, 0.952, 0.111, and 0.958, respectively. The specificity showed a significant difference (P=0.037). PET/CT is slightly more specific than contrast-enhanced CT. Conclusions: PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT may be useful tools for predicting the negativity of hilar LN status, but they are not recommended for guiding the hilar lymph node staging and the delineating of hilar LNM in radiotherapy planning of ESCC patients based on their low PPV.

Indexed as

CTesophageal squamous cell carcinomahilar lymph nodePETradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID35280825
PMCPMC8914423
OpenAlexW4214553641

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.