Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27072811›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2016

Monitoring metabolic response using FDG PET-CT during targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Erwin Woff, Alain Hendlisz, Camilo Garcia, Amelie Deleporte, Thierry Delaunoit, Raphaël Maréchal, Stéphane Holbrechts, Marc Van den Eynde, Gauthier Demolin, Irina Vierasu and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Efficacy assessment in phase I clinical trials: endpoints and challenges.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. EJNMMI research · 2018
    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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Erwin WoffNuclear Medicine Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Université libre de Bruxelles, 1 rue Héger-Bordet, 1000, Brussels, Belgium. erwin.woff@bordet.be.
Alain HendliszMedical Oncology Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Camilo GarciaNuclear Medicine Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Université libre de Bruxelles, 1 rue Héger-Bordet, 1000, Brussels, Belgium.
Amelie DeleporteMedical Oncology Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Thierry DelaunoitOncology Department, Jolimont Hospital, Haine-St-Paul, Belgium.
Raphaël MaréchalGastroenterology Medico-Surgical Department, Erasme University Hospital, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Stéphane HolbrechtsOncology Department, CHU Ambroise Paré, Mons, Belgium.
Marc Van den EyndeOncology Department, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Gauthier DemolinGastroenterology Department, CHC Saint-Joseph, Liège, Belgium.
Irina VierasuNuclear Medicine Department, Erasme University Hospital, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Renaud LhommelNuclear Medicine Department, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Namur GauthierNuclear Medicine Department, CHC Saint-Joseph, Liège, Belgium.
Thomas GuiotNuclear Medicine Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Université libre de Bruxelles, 1 rue Héger-Bordet, 1000, Brussels, Belgium.
Lieveke AmeyeData center Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Patrick FlamenNuclear Medicine Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Université libre de Bruxelles, 1 rue Héger-Bordet, 1000, Brussels, Belgium.
Institut Jules Bordet · BEClinique Saint-Joseph · BECliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BEUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BECHU Ambroise Paré · BEHôpital de Jolimont · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe introduction of targeted drugs has had a significant impact on the approach to assessing tumour response. These drugs often induce a rapid cytostatic effect associated with a less pronounced and slower tumoural volume reduction, thereby impairing the correlation between the absence of tumour shrinkage and the patient's unlikelihood of benefit. The aim of the study was to assess the predictive value of early metabolic response (mR) evaluation after one cycle, and its interlesional heterogeneity to a later metabolic and morphological response assessment performed after three cycles in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with combined sorafenib and capecitabine.

methodsThis substudy was performed within the framework of a wider prospective multicenter study on the predictive value of early FDG PET-CT response assessment (SoMore study). A lesion-based response analysis was performed, including all measurable lesions identified on the baseline PET. On a per-patient basis, a descriptive 4-class response categorization was applied based upon the presence and proportion of non-responding lesions. For dichotomic response comparison, all patients with at least one resistant lesion were classified as non-responding.

resultsOn baseline FDG PET-CT, 124 measurable "target" lesions were identified in 38 patients. Early mR assessments showed 18 patients (47 %) without treatment resistant lesions and 12 patients (32 %) with interlesional response heterogeneity. The NPV and PPV of early mR were 85 % (35/41) and 84 % (70/83), respectively, on a per-lesion basis and 95 % (19/20) and 72 % (13/18), respectively, on a dichotomized per-patient basis.

conclusionsEarly mR assessment performed after one cycle of sorafenib-capecitabine in mCRC is highly predictive of non-response at a standard response assessment time. The high NPV (95 %) of early mR could be useful as the basis for early treatment discontinuation or adaptation to spare patients from exposure to non-effective drugs.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCapecitabineColorectal NeoplasmsDrug MonitoringFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMaleMiddle AgedMolecular Targeted TherapyNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsCapecitabineFluorodeoxyglucose F18NiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsRadiopharmaceuticalsSorafenibEarly metabolic response assessmentFDG PET-CTMetastatic colorectal cancerTargeted therapyTumoral heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID27072811
PMCPMC4969337
OpenAlexW2340612978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.