ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Combined SUVmax and localized colonic wall thickening parameters to identify high-risk lesions from incidental focal colorectal
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 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.
- Focal incidental colorectal fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: Should it be spotlighted?World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Clinical significance ofJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the detection ability of Patients and methods: A total of 6394 patients who underwent Results: Of the 6394 patients, 145 patients were found to have incidental focal colorectal FDG uptake foci (2.3%), and 44 patients underwent colonoscopy and pathological examination at the same time. In fact, 45 lesions, including 12 low-risk lesions and 33 high-risk lesions (22 high-risk adenomas, 11 adenocarcinoma), were found by colonoscopy. The area under the ROC curve of SUVmax for low-risk lesions and high-risk lesions was 0.737, and the optimal cut-off value was 6.45 (with a sensitivity of 87.9% and specificity of 58.3%). When SUVmax ≥6.45, the combination of localized CWT parameters has little influence on the sensitivity and specificity of detection; when SUVmax <6.45, the combination of localized CWT parameters can improve the specificity of detection of high-risk lesions, but the sensitivity has little change. In addition, the size of high-risk adenomas discovered incidentally by Conclusions: The combination of SUVmax and localized CWT parameters of
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.