Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26854705›Full record

ArticleRadiology2016

Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Prospective Multicenter Comparison of Early Interim FLT PET/CT versus FDG PET/CT with IHP, EORTC, Deauville, and PERCIST Criteria for Early Therapeutic Monitoring.

Ryogo Minamimoto, Luis Fayad, Ranjana Advani, Julie Vose, Homer Macapinlac, Jane Meza, Jordan Hankins, Felix Mottaghy, Malik Juweid, Andrew Quon

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prediction of Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy Using Early-Time-PointJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2017
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Emerging Role of [Hematology reports · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Role of theranostics in thoracic oncology.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020
    Review
  11. European journal of hybrid imaging · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Prognostic analysis of interimEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019
    Article
  16. Prognostic values of baseline, interim and end-of therapyCancer management and research · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ryogo MinamimotoFrom the Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, and Department of Medical Oncology (R.A.), Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5281 (R.M., A.Q.); Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (R.M.); Departments of Lymphoma/Myeloma (L.F.) and Nuclear Medicine (H.M.), the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Oncology/Hematology Section (J.V.) and Department of Radiology (J.H.), University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Neb; Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, Omaha, Neb (J.M.); Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany (F.M.); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan (M.J.).
Luis FayadFrom the Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, and Department of Medical Oncology (R.A.), Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5281 (R.M., A.Q.); Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (R.M.); Departments of Lymphoma/Myeloma (L.F.) and Nuclear Medicine (H.M.), the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Oncology/Hematology Section (J.V.) and Department of Radiology (J.H.), University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Neb; Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, Omaha, Neb (J.M.); Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany (F.M.); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan (M.J.).
Ranjana AdvaniFrom the Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, and Department of Medical Oncology (R.A.), Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5281 (R.M., A.Q.); Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (R.M.); Departments of Lymphoma/Myeloma (L.F.) and Nuclear Medicine (H.M.), the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Oncology/Hematology Section (J.V.) and Department of Radiology (J.H.), University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Neb; Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, Omaha, Neb (J.M.); Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany (F.M.); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan (M.J.).
Julie VoseFrom the Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, and Department of Medical Oncology (R.A.), Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5281 (R.M., A.Q.); Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (R.M.); Departments of Lymphoma/Myeloma (L.F.) and Nuclear Medicine (H.M.), the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Oncology/Hematology Section (J.V.) and Department of Radiology (J.H.), University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Neb; Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, Omaha, Neb (J.M.); Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany (F.M.); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan (M.J.).
Homer MacapinlacFrom the Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, and Department of Medical Oncology (R.A.), Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5281 (R.M., A.Q.); Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (R.M.); Departments of Lymphoma/Myeloma (L.F.) and Nuclear Medicine (H.M.), the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Oncology/Hematology Section (J.V.) and Department of Radiology (J.H.), University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Neb; Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, Omaha, Neb (J.M.); Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany (F.M.); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan (M.J.).
Jane MezaFrom the Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, and Department of Medical Oncology (R.A.), Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5281 (R.M., A.Q.); Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (R.M.); Departments of Lymphoma/Myeloma (L.F.) and Nuclear Medicine (H.M.), the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Oncology/Hematology Section (J.V.) and Department of Radiology (J.H.), University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Neb; Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, Omaha, Neb (J.M.); Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany (F.M.); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan (M.J.).
Jordan HankinsFrom the Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, and Department of Medical Oncology (R.A.), Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5281 (R.M., A.Q.); Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (R.M.); Departments of Lymphoma/Myeloma (L.F.) and Nuclear Medicine (H.M.), the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Oncology/Hematology Section (J.V.) and Department of Radiology (J.H.), University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Neb; Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, Omaha, Neb (J.M.); Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany (F.M.); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan (M.J.).
Felix MottaghyFrom the Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, and Department of Medical Oncology (R.A.), Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5281 (R.M., A.Q.); Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (R.M.); Departments of Lymphoma/Myeloma (L.F.) and Nuclear Medicine (H.M.), the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Oncology/Hematology Section (J.V.) and Department of Radiology (J.H.), University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Neb; Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, Omaha, Neb (J.M.); Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany (F.M.); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan (M.J.).
Malik JuweidFrom the Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, and Department of Medical Oncology (R.A.), Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5281 (R.M., A.Q.); Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (R.M.); Departments of Lymphoma/Myeloma (L.F.) and Nuclear Medicine (H.M.), the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Oncology/Hematology Section (J.V.) and Department of Radiology (J.H.), University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Neb; Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, Omaha, Neb (J.M.); Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany (F.M.); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan (M.J.).
Andrew QuonFrom the Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, and Department of Medical Oncology (R.A.), Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5281 (R.M., A.Q.); Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (R.M.); Departments of Lymphoma/Myeloma (L.F.) and Nuclear Medicine (H.M.), the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Oncology/Hematology Section (J.V.) and Department of Radiology (J.H.), University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Neb; Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, Omaha, Neb (J.M.); Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany (F.M.); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan (M.J.).
Stanford University · US

Funding

FLT-PET/CT for Therapy Monitoring of DLBCLR01CA152923 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI FAYAD, LUIS, QUON, ANDREW · 2011 to 2014
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA152923
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To compare the performance characteristics of interim fluorine 18 ((18)F) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) (after two cycles of chemotherapy) by using the most prominent standardized interpretive criteria (including International Harmonization Project [IHP] criteria, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] criteria, and PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) versus those of interim (18)F fluorothymidine (FLT) PET/CT and simple visual interpretation. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant prospective study was approved by the institutional review boards, and written informed consent was obtained. Patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) underwent both FLT and FDG PET/CT 18-24 days after two cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone or rituximab, etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin. For FDG PET/CT interpretation, IHP criteria, EORTC criteria, PERCIST, Deauville criteria, standardized uptake value, total lesion glycolysis, and metabolic tumor volume were used. FLT PET/CT images were interpreted with visual assessment by two reviewers in consensus. The interim (after cycle 2) FDG and FLT PET/CT studies were then compared with the end-of-treatment FDG PET/CT studies to determine which interim examination and/or criteria best predicted the result after six cycles of chemotherapy. Results From November 2011 to May 2014, there were 60 potential patients for inclusion, of whom 46 patients (24 men [mean age, 60.9 years ± 13.7; range, 28-78 years] and 22 women [mean age, 57.2 years ± 13.4; range, 25-76 years]) fulfilled the criteria. Thirty-four patients had complete response, and 12 had residual disease at the end of treatment. FLT PET/CT had a significantly higher positive predictive value (PPV) (91%) in predicting residual disease than did any FDG PET/CT interpretation method (42%-46%). No difference in negative predictive value (NPV) was found between FLT PET/CT (94%) and FDG PET/CT (82%-95%), regardless of the interpretive criteria used. FLT PET/CT showed statistically higher (P < .001-.008) or similar NPVs than did FDG PET/CT. Conclusion Early interim FLT PET/CT had a significantly higher PPV than standardized FDG PET/CT-based interpretation for therapeutic response assessment in DLBCL. (©) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsAdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseMaleMiddle AgedPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProspective StudiesResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsTreatment OutcomeFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID26854705
PMCPMC4934532
OpenAlexW2263098589

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.