http://www.codesria.org/?q=1&p...-online-uk http://www.codesria.org/?q=1&p...s-in-india generic proscar buy clomid mg twins effexor pills side effects
viagra remboursement secu 
cialis generika preiswert 
viagra en allemagne 
http://www.capitalvision.fr/ma...du-levitra 
viagra generika shop 
donde comprar viagra con paypal super kamagra billig kaufen cialis soft generico 20 mg cialis apotheke http://www.javafilms.fr/?comps...a-pas-cher viagra en pharmacie prix pharmacie en ligne belgique viagra vs cialis levitra http://yoolab.wustl.edu/?comps...iagra-safe venta de cialis generico en mexico
    priligy pills for sale http://he.manhigut.org/?itemid...de-effects http://he.manhigut.org/?itemid...der-online effexor 150 mg withdrawal http://he.manhigut.org/?itemid...on-charges

The lack of evidence for PET or PET/CT surveillance of patients with treated lymphoma, colorectal cancer, and head and neck cancer: a systematic review

Wed, Sep 4, 2013

Oral Cancer News

Source: jnm.snmjournals.org
Authors: Kamal Patel et al

PET and PET/CT are widely used for surveillance of patients after cancer treatments. We conducted a systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of PET and PET/CT used for surveillance in several cancers.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases from 1996 to March 2012 for English-language studies of PET or PET/CT used for surveillance of patients with lymphoma, colorectal cancer, or head and neck cancer. We included prospective or retrospective studies that reported test accuracy and comparative studies that assessed clinical impact.

Results: Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria: 6 lymphoma (n = 767 patients), 2 colorectal cancer (n = 96), and 4 head and neck cancer (n = 194). All studies lacked a uniform definition of surveillance and scan protocols. Half the studies were retrospective, and a third were rated as low quality. The majority reported sensitivities and specificities in the range of 90%–100%, although several studies reported lower results. The only randomized controlled trial, a colorectal cancer study with 65 patients in the surveillance arm, reported earlier detection of recurrences with PET and suggested improved clinical outcomes.

Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the clinical impact of PET or PET/CT surveillance for these cancers. The lack of standard definitions for surveillance, heterogeneous scanning protocols, and inconsistencies in reporting test accuracy preclude making an informed judgment on the value of PET for this potential indication.

Authors:
Kamal Patel, Nira Hadar, Jounghee Lee, Barry A. Siegel, Bruce E. Hillner and Joseph Lau
Source: Journal of Nuclear Medicine September 1, 2013 vol. 54 no. 9 1518-1527

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
, , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.