Author, year, and reference | n | Stage III/IV patients (%) | Design | Masking | Indication of node dissection | Prevalence | Technique | QUADAS score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rose/1999 (40) | 32 | Included (81) | Prospective | NR | CT negative | 25% | PET | 10 |
Narayan/2001 (37) | 26 | Included (12) | Retrospective | Yes | CT negative* | 19% | PET | 7 |
Reinhardt/2001 (38) | 12 | Not included | Prospective | Yes | Palpable node | 25% | PET | 8 |
Lin/2003 (35) | 50 | Included (NR) | Prospective | No | CT negative | 28% | PET | 9 |
Roh/2005 (39) | 28 | Included (8) | Prospective | Yes | All patients | 7% | PET | 9 |
Wright/2005 (42) | 45 | Not included | Retrospective | NR | Surgeon's decision | 9% | PET and PET/CT | 8 |
Choi/2006 (33) | 27 | Included (11) | Prospective | Yes | All patients | 11% | PET/CT | 11 |
Boughanim/2008 (32) | 38 | Not included | Prospective | Yes | PET/CT negative | 8% | PET/CT | 9 |
Vergote/2008 (41) | 85 | Included (NR) | Prospective | NR | PET/CT negative | 11% | PET and PET/CT | 12 |
Yildirim/2008 (43) | 16 | Included (19) | Prospective | Yes | CT negative | 25% | PET/CT | 8 |
↵* Five of 26 patients had positive node on CT and received paraaortic nodal sampling.
NR = not reported.