Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39757730›Full record

ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2025

A Reassessment of the Clinical Utility of

Orjola Prela, Brennen Caveney, Myla Strawderman, David Linehan, Eva Galka, Luke Schoeniger, Aram Hezel, Nabeel Badri, Darren R Carpizo

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Orjola PrelaDepartment of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA.
Brennen CaveneyUniversity of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA.
Myla StrawdermanWilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
David LinehanUniversity of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA.
Eva GalkaWilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
Luke SchoenigerWilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
Aram HezelWilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
Nabeel BadriWilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
Darren R CarpizoWilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are a rare and biologically diverse group of tumors that are challenging to image.

methodsRetrospective study of pathologically confirmed GEP-NET patients between 1/1/2020 and 9/1/2022 at a tertiary care center. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic data were analyzed. The primary objective was to determine if PET/CT use was associated with a change in clinical management. The secondary objective was to determine if PET/CT was superior in identifying primary or metastatic lesions compared to traditional imaging.

resultsOne hundred twenty-four patients with GEP-NETs underwent 207 PET/CT scans. The majority of scans were obtained for disease surveillance (70.2%) or staging (37.9%), and the remaining (3.2%) were used to aid in diagnosis or before PRRT initiation (3.2%). Following PET/CT scan, 51 patients (41.1%) had a change in clinical management, with change being higher among those with metastatic disease (44.9% vs. 14.5%). Of the 124, 72 patients had traditional imaging available for comparison. In this subgroup, 34 patients (47.2%) had new lesions identified on PET/CT that were not identified using traditional imaging resulting in a change in management in 79.4% favoring patients with M1 versus M0 disease (26.9% M0 vs. 58.7% M1, p = 0.010).

conclusion

Indexed as

Intestinal NeoplasmsNeuroendocrine TumorsOrganometallic CompoundsPancreatic NeoplasmsPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyStomach NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGallium RadioisotopesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRadiopharmaceuticalsgallium Ga 68 dotatateGallium RadioisotopesOrganometallic CompoundsRadiopharmaceuticalsclinical utilityGallium‐68 Dotatate PET/CTgastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumorsmanagement change

Identifiers

PMID39757730
PMCPMC12186107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.