ArticleHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2022
Prospective evaluation of
Article in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Colon cancer: the 2023 Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Guideline
- Importance of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography as preoperative staging tests prior to liver resection.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Despite considerable advances in preoperative imaging, up to one-third of patients operatively explored for hepatic colorectal metastases are unexpectedly found to harbor unresectable intrahepatic or extrahepatic disease. Methods: The current study is a prospective, blinded study comparing utility of [ Results: The 125 planned subjects were enrolled. Findings seen on FDG-PET alone changed therapy for 23 of 125 patients (18%). FDG-PET confirmed other radiologic findings in 16 cases (13%), for an overall influence on therapy in 39 cases (31%). FDG-PET was the most sensitive diagnostic imaging test for extrahepatic cancer; it was 80-90% sensitive for extrahepatic cancer and 70-90% specific. For the 28 cases of unresectable disease due to extrahepatic disease, FDG-PET findings solely changed therapies in 16 cases (57%) and influenced therapy in seven other cases (25%). Of the 21 unresectable cases due to extent of intrahepatic disease, FDG-PET did not solely change therapy in any. Overall, FDG-PET had the lowest sensitivity for hepatic sites compared with CT or CTAP. In particular, small (<1 cm) liver tumors were particularly poorly detected by FDG-PET. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for small tumors was 0.58 and for patients on chemotherapy it was 0.66, a modest improvement over no imaging. Conclusions: FDG-PET is an important test for preoperative staging of patients with hepatic colorectal metastases, affecting treatment decisions in nearly one-third of patients. The high yield is due mainly to detection of extrahepatic disease. It is therefore recommended in patients with extrahepatic lesions suspected to be disseminated cancer or those with high risk for extrahepatic disease. It is not a good test for identification of small tumors in the liver.
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.