ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Integrated FDG-PET/CT contribution over cross-sectional imaging in recurrence or progression of pancreaticobiliary neoplasms.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic investigation, intervention, and outcome for post-subtotal gastrectomy patients who present with jaundice.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aim to compare FDG-PET/CT and cross-sectional imaging (contrastenhanced CT/MRI) diagnostic abilities in detecting recurrence/progression of pancreaticobiliary system tumors and to reveal the clinical impact of integrated FDGPET/CT to CT/MRI on patient management. MATERIALS AND
methodsFDG-PET/CT and CT/MRI scans of 70 patients from initiation of treatment until proven recurrence/progression were retrospectively evaluated. FDGPET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT/MRI accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV are compared in terms of overall recurrence/progression diagnosis and sitespecific concern; local disease, local lymph node, and distant organ metastasis. The impact of integrated FDG-PET/CT on patient management is scrutinized.
resultsCT/MRI has higher sensitivity than FDG-PET/CT in detecting loco-regional involvement (90% vs 76.7% P: 0.152), local lymph node metastasis (88.9% vs 77.8%, P: 0.380) and distant organ metastasis (96.5% vs 80.7%; P: 0.006) in tumor recurrence/progression. In overall diagnosis, CT/MRI is more sensitive and accurate but less specific than FDG-PET/CT (92.3% vs 87.7%; 87.1% vs 84.2%; 40% vs 20%, respectively). In 8% (6/70) of patients FDG-PET/CT had a major impact on patient management.
conclusionFDG-PET/CT and cross-sectional imaging have different advantages and shortcomings. In recurrence/progression, recognition of early changes is more feasible by CT/MRI. However, inconsistency of morphologic and metabolic findings is important reason of cross-sectional imaging failure. FDG-PET/CT is superior in showing extraabdominal metastases, but missing small-volume lesions and misinterpreting inflammatory changes are still a problem lowering its sensitivity. Nevertheless FDGPET/CT is good option for guiding undetermined imaging findings or clinic-radiologic mismatch.
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.