ArticleCancer diagnosis & prognosis
Efficacy of Pre-operative 18F-FDG PET/CT in Prognostic Prediction in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.
Article in Cancer diagnosis & prognosis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel radiopharmaceuticals for molecular imaging of renal cell carcinoma.BMJ oncology · 2025Review
- Prognostic Significance ofMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aim: This study analyzed the parameters provided by preoperative Patients and Methods: FDG-PET/CT data from 66 clear cell RCC and 19 non-clear cell RCC cases between January 2015 and October 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. We compared the two groups according to recurrence/metastasis to determine prognosis-influencing factors. Multivariate Cox hazard regression models were constructed to evaluate factors potentially predicting disease-free survival (DFS) after adjustment for confounders. DFS was then compared between groups. Results: Standardized uptake values (SUV) of the PET/CT scan were independent predictors of prognosis after adjusting for confounders. RCC cases were divided into two groups by optimal cut-off values. Differences between DFS percentages in high and low SUV groups were significant. Similar results were obtained in clear cell RCC groups. Conclusion: Increased SUV of the PET/CT scan are significant predictors of worse prognoses in patients with surgically resected RCC.
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.