ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Clinical impact of routine second‑opinion reading of [¹⁸F]FDG‑PET/CT in newly diagnosed invasive bladder cancer: A multicentre study in a centralised referral network.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose[¹⁸F]FDG‑PET/CT is increasingly used to stage invasive bladder cancer (IBC), resulting in growing demand at tertiary centres for time‑intensive second‑opinion reading of externally acquired scans. However, the incremental clinical value of routine reinterpretation is unclear. We evaluated the clinical impact of second‑opinion [¹⁸F]FDG‑PET/CT reading in a centralised referral network in the Netherlands.
methodsIn this multicentre retrospective diagnostic cohort study, consecutive patients with histologically confirmed high-grade IBC who underwent externally acquired [¹⁸F]FDG‑PET/CT followed by expert second‑opinion reading at two tertiary centres were evaluated. Initial staging reports were compared with second-opinion staging assessments. Clinically meaningful discrepancies were defined as changes in nodal status (cN0 vs. cN+) or distant metastatic status (cM0 vs. cM1 or cM1a vs. cM1b). Treatment recommendation changes directly attributable to second-opinion reading were recorded.
resultsSix hundred patients were included. Agreement between initial and second‑opinion reading was high for both nodal and metastatic staging (κ = 0.89 and κ = 0.87, respectively). Clinically meaningful discrepancies occurred in 33 patients (5.5%), resulting in revised treatment recommendations in 22 patients (3.7%). Suspected nodal disease on the initial report was associated with higher odds of discrepancy at second-opinion reading (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.0-4.4).
conclusionIn this multicentre cohort, routine second‑opinion reading of externally acquired [¹⁸F]FDG‑PET/CT for IBC yielded limited incremental clinical impact within a centralised referral network in the Netherlands. These findings suggest that a more selective approach to second-opinion reading, particularly for patients with suspected nodal disease on the initial report, may warrant further evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42637974What 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.