ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2017
FDG-PET/CT for response evaluation of invasive bladder cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- A pilot study of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Trial
- Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Bladder Cancer: The Role of [Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Performance ofiScience · 2024Article
- Differential performance of imaging modalities predicting pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in urothelial bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Central European journal of urology · 2024Review
- PET Imaging in Bladder Cancer: An Update and Future Direction.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Review
- Prospective Evaluation of FDG-PET/CT for On-treatment Assessment of Response to Neoadjuvant or Induction Chemotherapy in Invasive Bladder Cancer.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023Article
- Disease Management of Clinical Complete Responders to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Review of Literature.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Management of Localized Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer from a Multidisciplinary Perspective: Current Position of the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary (SOGUG) Working Group.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
- The Role of Molecular Imaging in a Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Patient: A Narrative Review in the Era of Multimodality Treatment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- The Role of Imaging in Bladder Cancer Diagnosis and Staging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Competitive glucose metabolism as a target to boost bladder cancer immunotherapy.Nature reviews. Urology · 2020Review
- The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Guiding Precision Medicine for Invasive Bladder Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe investigated the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT response identification following neoadjuvant or induction chemotherapy (NAIC) for invasive bladder cancer (BC) as to better select patients for radical cystectomy (RC).
methodsBetween 2010 and 2014, 37 cT1-4N1-3 BC patients received a FDG-PET/CT before and after NAIC followed by RC. Metabolic lymph node (LN) response was evaluated according to EORTC recommendations. Additionally, primary tumor response was evaluated for 23 patients by means of delayed pelvic imaging after forced diuresis. Gold standard was response on pathologic analysis of RC specimens. Response was defined as partial response (pPR, any pathologic downstaging) or complete response (pCR, <ypT1N0). Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was correlated with pCR and metabolic CR.
resultsTwenty-four cN+ patients achieved LN pCR. FDG-PET/CT identified pCR with 67% sensitivity and 46% specificity. Primary tumor response was evaluable for 17/23 patients, of whom 12 were responders. Tumor downstaging (pPR or pCR) was identified with 83% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Tumor pCR was detected with 70% sensitivity and 71% specificity. pCR of overall disease (primary tumor and LNs, n = 17) was detected with 67% sensitivity and 75% specificity. CSS was positively associated with pathologic CR (HR 0.16, p = 0.027), but not with metabolic CR (HR 0.560, p = 0.612).
conclusionFDG-PET/CT can accurately distinguish primary tumor downstaging from non-response, which suggests that response monitoring (in cN0 patients) might be used to adjust neoadjuvant treatment. pCR identification is less accurate, especially for LN metastases, which suggests that FDG-PET/CT cannot be used to select patients for RC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28674853What 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.