ArticlePloS one2024
Preoperative dual-energy computed tomography and positron-emission tomography evaluation of lymph node metastasis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- 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] · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the detectability of lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma using a combination of dual-energy computed tomography (CT) and positron-emission tomography (PET) parameters.
methodsWe analyzed dual-energy CT and PET preoperative data in 27 consecutive patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (23 men, 4 women; mean age, 73.7 years). We selected lymph nodes with a short-axis diameter of ≥5 mm and measured CT values, iodine concentrations, fat fractions, long- and short-axis diameters, and ratio of long- and short-axis diameters. We performed visual assessment of lymph node characteristics based on dual-energy CT and determined the maximum standardized uptake value via PET. The measured values were postoperatively compared between pathologically confirmed metastatic and nonmetastatic lymph nodes. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with lymph node metastasis. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed via receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
resultsOverall, 18 metastatic and 37 nonmetastatic lymph nodes were detected. CT values, iodine concentrations, fat fractions, and the maximum standardized uptake values differed significantly between metastatic and nonmetastatic lymph nodes (p < 0.05). Stepwise logistic regression showed that iodine concentration and the maximum standardized uptake value were significant predictors of metastatic lymph nodes. The areas under the curve of iodine concentrations and maximum standardized uptake values were 0.809 and 0.833, respectively. The area under the curve of the combined parameters was 0.884, with 83.3% sensitivity and 86.5% specificity.
conclusionCombined dual-energy CT and PET parameters improved the diagnosis of lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer.
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.