Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40295013›Full record

ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)

The Diagnostic Yield of Whole-body Computed Tomography in Dogs and Cats in the Oncology Setting.

Maria DE Almeida, Hugo Gregório, André Pereira, Felisbina L Queiroga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maria DE Almeida *Anicura CHV Porto Hospital Veterinário, Porto, Portugal.
Hugo Gregório *Anicura CHV Porto Hospital Veterinário, Porto, Portugal.
André PereiraAnicura CHV Porto Hospital Veterinário, Porto, Portugal.
Felisbina L QueirogaDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal; fqueirog@utad.pt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimClinical staging has become essential in veterinary oncology. It is crucial for creating effective treatment plans and predicting outcomes. Whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) can serve as a comprehensive staging examination, offering a detailed view of a patient's internal anatomy. This retrospective study aimed to assess the diagnostic yield of WBCT in diagnosing cancer in dogs and cats. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe reviewed medical records of cats and dogs that underwent a WBCT scan between January 2016 and May 2023. Only cases with a confirmed cytological or histological diagnosis of the primary tumor and complete medical records were considered. We collected data on histological diagnoses and diagnostic methods used.

resultsOur study included 57 animals that underwent WBCT for cancer-related reasons. Metastases were detected in 14 dogs, with four showing metastases in multiple locations, five in the lungs, three in the lymph nodes, one in the skeleton, and one in the liver, yielding a diagnostic rate of 31.8%. In cats, metastases were detected in six cases (five in the lungs and one in the lymph nodes), with a diagnostic yield of 46.2%. WBCT identified metastasis in over 35% of cases, including those outside the thoracic and abdominal cavities, indicating potentially greater accuracy than radiography and ultrasound.

conclusionWBCT is an effective and safe method for tumor staging and oncological diagnosis in dogs and cats.

Indexed as

Cat DiseasesDog DiseasesNeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedWhole Body ImagingAnimalsCatsDogsFemaleMaleNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingRetrospective Studiescatdogveterinary oncologyWhole-body computed tomography

Identifiers

PMID40295013
PMCPMC12041982

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.