Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27645694›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2017

The role of FDG PET/CT in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for localized bone sarcomas.

Emanuela Palmerini, Marco Colangeli, Cristina Nanni, Stefano Fanti, Emanuela Marchesi, Anna Paioli, Piero Picci, Silvia Cambioli, Davide Donati, Luca Cevolani and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of Ewing sarcoma (Spanish Sarcoma Research Group-GEIS).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Effectiveness ofBMC cancer · 2019
    Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Clinical Perspectives forMetabolites · 2022
    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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emanuela PalmeriniChemotherapy, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy. emanuela.palmerini@ior.it.
Marco ColangeliOrthopaedic Surgery, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Cristina NanniNuclear Medicine, Sant' Orsola Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Stefano FantiNuclear Medicine, Sant' Orsola Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Emanuela MarchesiChemotherapy, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Anna PaioliChemotherapy, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Piero PicciResearch Laboratory, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Silvia CambioliNuclear Medicine, Sant' Orsola Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Davide DonatiOrthopaedic Surgery, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Luca CevolaniOrthopaedic Surgery, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Massimiliano De PaolisOrthopaedic Surgery, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Marco GambarottiSurgical Pathology, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Stefano FerrariChemotherapy, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe histological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an important prognostic factor in patients with osteosarcoma (OS) and Ewing sarcoma (EWS). The aim of this study was to assess baseline primary tumour FDG uptake on PET/CT, and serum values of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), to establish whether these factors are correlated with tumour necrosis and prognosis.

methodsPatients treated between 2009 and 2014 for localized EWS and OS, who underwent FDG PET/CT as part of their staging work-up, were included. The relationships between primary tumour SUVmax at baseline (SUV1), SUVmax after induction chemotherapy (SUV2), metabolic response calculated as [(SUV1 - SUV2)/SUV1)] × 100, LDH and ALP and tumour response/survival were analysed. A good response (GR) was defined as tumour necrosis >90 % in patients with OS, and grade II-III Picci necrosis (persitence of microscopic foci only or no viable tumor) in patients with Ewing sarcoma.

resultsThe study included 77 patients, 45 with EWS and 32 with OS. A good histological response was achieved in 53 % of EWS patients, and 41 % of OS patients. The 3-year event-free survival (EFS) was 57 % in EWS patients and 48 % OS patients. The median SUV1 was 5.6 (range 0 - 17) in EWS patients and 7.9 (range 0 - 24) in OS patients (p = 0.006). In EWS patients the GR rate was 30 % in those with a high SUV1 (≥6) and 72 % in those with a lower SUV1 (p = 0.0004), and in OS patients the GR rate was 29 % in those with SUV1 ≥6 and 64 % in those with a lower SUV1 (p = 0.05). In the univariate analysis the 3-year EFS was significantly better in patients with a low ALP level (59 %) than in those with a high ALP level (22 %, p = 0.02) and in patients with a low LDH level (62 %) than in those with a high LDH level (37 %, p = 0.004). In EWS patients the 3-year EFS was 37 % in those with a high SUV1 and 75 % in those with a low SUV1 (p = 0.004), and in OS patients the 3-year EFS was 32 % in those with a high SUV1 and 66 % in those with a low SUV1 (p = 0.1). Histology, age and gender were not associated with survival. In the multivariate analysis, SUV1 was the only independent pretreatment prognostic factor to retain statistical significance (p = 0.017). SUV2 was assessed in 25 EWS patients: the median SUV2 was 1.9 (range 1 - 8). The GR rate was 20 % in patients with a high SUV2, and 67 % in those with a low SUV2 (p = 0.02). A good metabolic response (SUV reduction of ≥55 %) was associated with a 3-year EFS of 80 % and a poor metabolic response with a 3-year EFS of 20 % (p = 0.05). In the OS patients the median SUV2 was 2.7 (range 0 - 4.5). Neither SUV2 nor the metabolic response was associated with outcome in OS patients.

conclusionFDG PET/CT is a useful and noninvasive tool for identifying patients who are more likely to be resistant to chemotherapy. If this finding is confirmed in a larger series, SUV1, SUV2 and metabolic response could be proposed as factors for stratifying EWS patients to identify those with high-grade localized bone EWS who would benefit from risk-adapted induction chemotherapy.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBone NeoplasmsChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantChildChild, PreschoolFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansItalyMaleNeoadjuvant TherapyPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPrevalencePrognosisRadiopharmaceuticalsFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsEwing sarcomaNeo-adjuvant chemotherapyOsteosarcomaPET-CTPrognosisSUV1

Identifiers

PMID27645694
PMCPMC5215266
OpenAlexW2522100588

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.