ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Diagnostic performance of
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 compare the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET-CT and SPECT whole-body bone imaging for detecting bone metastases in patients with colorectal cancer. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 118 patients with pathologically confirmed colorectal cancer who underwent both 18F-FDG PET-CT and SPECT whole-body bone imaging within one month during follow-up for newly suspected bone metastases. The cohort included 62 males and 56 females, with a mean age of 59.1 ± 7.6 years. The final diagnosis of bone metastases was established based on comprehensive imaging follow-up, including CT, MRI, SPECT, PET-CT, and clinical progression over more than 6 months. Diagnostic performance was evaluated on a lesion-based basis. Results: A total of 533 abnormal lesions were detected in 118 patients, including 469 metastatic lesions and 64 benign lesions. PET-CT detected 423 lesions, whereas SPECT detected 398 lesions, with 288 lesions identified by both modalities. PET-CT correctly identified 428 metastatic lesions, yielding a sensitivity of 91.3%, while SPECT identified 280 metastatic lesions, with a sensitivity of 59.7%. Among the benign lesions, PET-CT correctly identified 60 lesions, resulting in a specificity of 93.8%, whereas SPECT correctly identified 30 lesions, with a specificity of 46.9%. The overall diagnostic accuracy of PET-CT and SPECT was 91.6% and 58.2%, respectively. Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET-CT demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy than SPECT for detecting bone metastases from colorectal cancer. PET-CT may provide superior diagnostic value for predominantly osteolytic bone metastases in colorectal cancer, while SPECT remains an important and widely available first-line screening modality in routine clinical practice.
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.