ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017
Variations in positron emission tomography-computed tomography findings for patients receiving neoadjuvant and non-neoadjuvant therapy for non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aims of this study were to predict locoregional lymph node (LN) metastases using positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) and investigate variations in PET-CT findings for patients receiving neoadjuvant (NT) and non-neoadjuvant (non-NT) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
methodsData from 578 consecutive patients from January 2010 to December 2015 who met this study inclusion criteria were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent curative and complete resections for NSCLC in a Korean hospital. We analyzed the associations between maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) and pathological stage, compared disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), investigated relationships among SUVmax values, evaluated LN status and compared pathologically negative and positive LNs by SUVmax, and assessed the influence of neoadjuvant therapy on SUVmax. All LNs were analyzed separately for N1 and N2.
results(I) For non-NT, we found significantly positive associations between pathological stage and SUVmax (tumor, N1 LN, and N2 LN, all P<0.001). For NT, we found positive correlations between pathological stage and tumor and N2 LN SUVmax, except for N1 LN (tumor P=0.005, N1 LN P=0.981, N2 LN P=0.045); (II) for non-NT, the low SUVmax group had higher DFS and OS than the high SUVmax group (DFS: tumor SUVmax P<0.001, N1 LN SUVmax P=0.002, N2 LN SUVmax P=0.027; OS: tumor SUVmax P<0.001, N1 LN SUVmax P=0.006, N2 LN SUVmax P=0.006). For NT, the low SUVmax group had nonsignificantly higher DFS and OS than the high SUVmax group. When age, sex, and SUVmax were equal, pathological stages were significantly higher for NT than non-NT (P<0.001). Non-NT had significantly higher DFS (P=0.001) and OS (P=0.024) than NT; (III) for non-NT, tumor, N1 LN, and N2 SUVmax were positively associated (all P<0.001). For NT, tumor and N2 SUVmax (P<0.001), and N1 and N2 SUVmax (P=0.025) correlated positively; tumor and N1 LN SUVmax did not (P=0.911); (IV) for non-NT, there was significant cutoff values for prediction of LN metastases using both tumor and LN SUVmax (N1 LN: tumor SUVmax cutoff 5.95, sensitivity 66.3%, specificity 66.0%, area =0.748, P<0.001; N1 LN SUVmax cutoff 2.05, sensitivity 57.83%, specificity 66.43%, area =0.676, P<0.001) (N2 LN: tumor SUVmax cutoff 5.95, sensitivity 63.04%, specificity 63.95%, area =0.726, P<0.001; N2 LN SUVmax cutoff 2.05, sensitivity 65.22%, specificity 69.96%, area =0.678, P<0.001). For NT, no SUVmax values significantly predicted LN metastases; () Pathologically malignant and benign LN SUVmax after neoadjuvant therapy were not different (N1 LN P=0.570, N2 LN P=0.105). For non-NT, pathologically malignant LN SUVmax was significantly higher than pathologically benign LN SUVmax (N1 LN P<0.001, N2 LN P=0.001).
conclusionsThis study showed variations in PET-CT findings for NT and non-NT, which should be verified for evaluation and management, especially for surgery planning. SUV max is not a reliable predictor of lymphatic involvement after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with NSCLC. Surgery should not be withheld or delayed based on lack of knowledge about variations in PET-CT findings, which must be interpreted in conjunction with other conditions. Further studies on interpretation of PET-CT findings, especially for NT, are needed for better management and prognosis.
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.