Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24991866›Full record

ArticleInvestigative radiology2014

Validation of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound in predicting outcomes of antiangiogenic therapy for solid tumors: the French multicenter support for innovative and expensive techniques study.

Nathalie Lassau, Julia Bonastre, Michèle Kind, Valérie Vilgrain, Joëlle Lacroix, Marie Cuinet, Sophie Taieb, Richard Aziza, Antony Sarran, Catherine Labbe-Devilliers and 13 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing 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

57 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Current trends in the characterization and monitoring of vascular response to cancer therapy.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

23 authors.

Nathalie LassauFrom the *Integrated Research Cancer Institute, Research Department, Villejuif; †Service Biostatistique et Épidémiologie, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif; ‡Imaging Department, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux; §Department of Radiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy, and Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité; ∥Department of Radiology, Centre François Baclesse, Caen; ¶Department of Radiology, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon; #Imaging Department, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille; **Radiodiagnostics Department, Centre Claudius Regaud, Toulouse; ††Imaging Department, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; ‡‡Radiodiagnostics Department, Centre R Gauducheau, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest Nantes; §§Department of Abdominal and Digestive Imaging, Hôpital Saint-Éloi, Montpellier; ∥∥Radiology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire La Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris; ¶¶Radiodiagnostics Department, Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand; ##Radiology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Bicêtre, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre; ***Radiodiagnostics and Imaging Department, Institut Jean Godinot, Reims; †††Ultrasonography Department, Hôpital Ambroise Paré, Boulogne-Billancourt; ‡‡‡Radiology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Hôtel-Dieu, Lyon; §§§Radiology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Henri Mondor, Créteil; ∥∥∥Imaging Department, Centre Georges-François Leclerc, Dijon Cedex; and ¶¶¶Radiology Department, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France.
Julia Bonastre
Michèle Kind
Valérie Vilgrain
Joëlle Lacroix
Marie Cuinet
Sophie Taieb
Richard Aziza
Antony Sarran
Catherine Labbe-Devilliers
Benoit Gallix
Olivier Lucidarme
Yvette Ptak
Laurence Rocher
Louis-Michel Caquot
Sophie Chagnon
Denis Marion
Alain Luciani
Sylvaine Feutray
Joëlle Uzan-Augui
Benedicte Coiffier
Baya Benastou
Serge Koscielny

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) has been used in single-center studies to evaluate tumor response to antiangiogenic treatments: the change of area under the perfusion curve (AUC), a criterion linked to blood volume, was consistently correlated with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response. The main objective here was to do a multicentric validation of the use of DCE-US to evaluate tumor response in different solid tumor types treated by several antiangiogenic agents. A secondary objective was to evaluate the costs of the procedure. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis prospective study included patients from 2007 to 2010 in 19 centers (8 teaching hospitals and 11 comprehensive cancer centers). All patients treated with antiangiogenic therapy were eligible. Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound examinations were performed at baseline as well as on days 7, 15, 30, and 60. For each examination, a perfusion curve was recorded during 3 minutes after injection of a contrast agent. Change from baseline at each time point was estimated for each of 7 fitted criteria. The main end point was freedom from progression (FFP). Criterion/time-point combinations with the strongest correlation with FFP were analyzed further to estimate an optimal cutoff point.

resultsA total of 1968 DCE-US examinations in 539 patients were analyzed. The median follow-up was 1.65 years. Variations from baseline were significant at day 30 for several criteria, with AUC having the most significant association with FFP (P = 0.00002). Patients with a greater than 40% decrease in AUC at day 30 had better FFP (P = 0.005) and overall survival (P = 0.05). The mean cost of each DCE-US was 180&OV0556;, which corresponds to $250 using the current exchange rate.

conclusionsDynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound is a new functional imaging technique that provides a validated criterion, namely, the change of AUC from baseline to day 30, which is predictive of tumor progression in a large multicenter cohort. Because of its low cost, it should be considered in the routine evaluation of solid tumors treated with antiangiogenic therapy.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaPhospholipidsSulfur HexafluorideAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAngiogenesis InhibitorsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesFranceHumansImage EnhancementMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsProspective StudiesAngiogenesis Inhibitorscontrast agent BR1Contrast MediaPhospholipidsSulfur Hexafluoride

Identifiers

PMID24991866
PMCPMC4222794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.