A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Performance of integrated FDG PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: Comparison with integrated FDG PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT. | LitMetric

Purpose: The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) with IV contrast for depiction of suspected recurrent colorectal cancer and to assess the impact of PET/contrast-enhanced CT findings on clinical management compared with PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and CT component.

Methods: One hundred seventy patients previously treated for colorectal cancer underwent PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT for suspected recurrence. PET/contrast-enhanced CT, PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT were interpreted by two experienced radiologists by consensus for each investigation. Lesion status was determined on the basis of histopathology, radiological imaging and clinical follow-up for longer than 6 months.

Results: Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET/contrast-enhanced CT were 93.2 (69/74), 95.8 (92/96) and 94.7% (161/170), respectively, whereas those of PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT were 89.2 (66/74), 94.8 (91/96) and 92.4% (157/170), respectively, and those of enhanced CT were 79.7 (59/74), 93.8 (90/96) and 87.6% (149/170), respectively. Sensitivity and accuracy differed significantly among the three modalities (Cochran's Q test: p = 0.0004 and p = 0.0001, respectively).The findings of PET/contrast-enhanced CT resulted in a change of management for 64 of the 170 patients (38%) and had an effect on patient management in 12 patients (7%) diagnosed by enhanced CT alone and 4 patients (2%) diagnosed by PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT.

Conclusion: Integrated PET/contrast-enhanced CT is an accurate modality for assessing colorectal cancer recurrence and led to changes in the subsequent appropriate therapy.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1081-5DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

colorectal cancer
16
integrated fdg
8
recurrent colorectal
8
pet/non-contrast-enhanced enhanced
8
patients diagnosed
8
pet/contrast-enhanced
6
pet/non-contrast-enhanced
5
performance integrated
4
fdg pet/contrast-enhanced
4
pet/contrast-enhanced diagnosis
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!