Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27738729›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2017

Efficacy of qualitative response assessment interpretation criteria at 18F-FDG PET-CT for predicting outcome in locally advanced cervical carcinoma treated with chemoradiotherapy.

Andrew Scarsbrook, Sriram Vaidyanathan, Fahmid Chowdhury, Sarah Swift, Rachel Cooper, Chirag Patel

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article 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 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Roles of posttherapyEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Potential prognostic role of theStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Frontiers in medicine · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. What's New in Imaging for Gynecologic Cancer?Current oncology reports · 2017
    Review
  17. The role ofThe British journal of radiology · 2017
    Review
  18. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew ScarsbrookDepartment of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK. a.scarsbrook@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4243-032X
Sriram VaidyanathanDepartment of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Fahmid ChowdhuryDepartment of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Sarah SwiftDepartment of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Rachel CooperDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Chirag PatelDepartment of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the utility of a standardized qualitative scoring system for treatment response assessment at 18F-FDG PET-CT in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervical carcinoma and correlate this with subsequent patient outcome.

methodsNinety-six consecutive patients with locally advanced cervical carcinoma treated with radical chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in a single centre between 2011 and 2014 underwent 18F-FDG PET-CT approximately 3 months post-treatment. Tumour metabolic response was assessed qualitatively using a 5-point scale ranging from background level activity only through to progressive metabolic disease. Clinical and radiological (MRI pelvis) follow-up was performed in all patients. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method (Mantel-Cox log-rank) and correlated with qualitative score using Chi-squared test.

resultsForty patients (41.7 %) demonstrated complete metabolic response (CMR) on post-treatment PET-CT (Score 1/2) with 38 patients (95.0 %) remaining disease free after a minimum follow-up period of 18 months. Twenty-four patients (25.0 %) had indeterminate residual uptake (ID, Score 3) at primary or nodal sites after treatment, of these eight patients (33.3 %) relapsed on follow-up, including all patients with residual nodal uptake (n = 4Eleven11 of 17 patients (64.7 %) with significant residual uptake (partial metabolic response, PMR, Score 4) subsequently relapsed. In 15 patients (15.6 %) PET-CT demonstrated progressive disease (PD, Score 5) following treatment. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a highly statistically significant difference in PFS and OS between patients with CMR, indeterminate uptake, PMR and PD (Log-rank, P < 0.0001). Chi-squared test demonstrated a highly statistically significant association between increasing qualitative score and risk of recurrence or death (P < 0.001).

conclusionUse of a 5-point qualitative scoring system to assess metabolic response to CRT in locally advanced cervical carcinoma predicts survival outcome and this prognostic information may help guide further patient management.

Indexed as

Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyAdultAgedCarcinomaChemoradiotherapyFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMiddle AgedRadiopharmaceuticalsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticalscervical cancerFDG PET-CTqualitative scoringradiotherapysurvival analysistherapy assessment

Identifiers

PMID27738729
PMCPMC5323466
OpenAlexW2531438029

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.