ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2015
Pilot study assessing (18)F-fluorothymidine PET/CT in cervical and vaginal cancers before and after external beam radiation.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Diffusion-weighted MRI andEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe role of F-18-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET-CT imaging in the evaluation of gynecologic cancers has not been established. We sought to evaluate (FLT) PET-CT imaging in gynecologic cancers by comparing standard uptake values (SUVs) of FLT with F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET in the primary tumor at diagnosis, and assess FLT uptake immediately following concurrent chemoradiotherapy (chemoRT).
methodsIn this pilot study, patients treated for cervical (5) or vaginal (1) cancer underwent FLT-PET and FDG-PET scanning at diagnosis (FLT1 and FDG1). Five patients (4 cervical and 1 vaginal) also underwent FLT-PET within 1-3 weeks after chemoRT before brachytherapy (FLT2). Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the FLT1 and FDG1 parameters.
resultsMedian age at diagnosis was 61-years (range, 33-72). Cervical cancers were staged as IB2 (n = 1, 20%), IIB (n = 1, 20%), IIIB (n = 1, 20%) and IVA (n = 2, 40%) and the single vaginal cancer was staged IIIB. The most common histology was squamous cell carcinoma (n = 3, 50%) followed by adenocarcinoma (n = 2, 33%) and clear-cell adenosquamous carcinoma (n = 1, 17%). Median tumor SUVmax at diagnosis was 7.8 on FLT1-PET (3.9-14.2) versus 11.6 (5.9-23.2) on FDG1-PET (p = 0.15). Tumor SUVmax of FLT declined 54%-100% after chemoRT.
conclusionThe tumor SUV of FLT at diagnosis was lower than that of FDG-PET. FLT uptake was markedly decreased after chemoRT. Results indicate that there may not be a significant effect of inflammation on FLT uptake in gynecologic cancers. FLT may be a useful tool when assessing the effects of chemoRT on gynecologic malignancies and planning for postchemoRT brachytherapy treatments.
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.