ArticleCancer medicine2014
CT versus FDG-PET/CT response evaluation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monitoring metabolic response using FDG PET-CT during targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016Trial
- PET/CT in assessment of colorectal liver metastases: a comprehensive review with emphasis onClinical & experimental metastasis · 2023Review
- The Value ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Tailoring the clinical management of colorectal cancer byFrontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Comparison of the morphologic criteria (RECIST) and metabolic criteria (EORTC and PERCIST) in tumor response assessments: a pooled analysis.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Evaluating tumor response with FDG PET: updates on PERCIST, comparison with EORTC criteria and clues to future developments.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Review
- Comparison of the RECIST and PERCIST criteria in solid tumors: a pooled analysis and review.Oncotarget · 2016Review
- Observational
- Timing and extent of response in colorectal cancer: critical review of current data and implication for future trials.Oncotarget · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared morphologic computed tomography (CT)-based to metabolic fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT-based response evaluation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and correlated the findings with survival and KRAS status. From 2006 to 2009, patients were included in a phase II trial and treated with cetuximab and irinotecan every second week. They underwent FDG-PET/CT examination at baseline and after every fourth treatment cycle. Response evaluation was performed prospectively according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.0) and retrospectively according to Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST). Best overall responses were registered. Sixty-one patients were eligible for response evaluation. Partial response (PR) rate was 18%, stable disease (SD) rate 64%, and progressive disease (PD) rate 18%. Partial metabolic response (PMR) rate was 56%, stable metabolic disease rate 33%, and progressive metabolic disease (PMD) rate 11%. Response agreement was poor, κ-coefficient 0.19. Hazard ratio for overall survival for responders (PR/PMR) versus nonresponders (PD/PMD) was higher for CT- than for FDG-PET/CT evaluation. Within patients with KRAS mutations, none had PR but 44% had PMR. In conclusion, morphologic and metabolic response agreement was poor primarily because a large part of the patients shifted from SD with CT evaluation to PMR when evaluated with FDG-PET/CT. Furthermore, a larger fraction of the patients with KRAS mutations had a metabolic treatment response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.