Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28994017›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of hematology2018

Comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with gallium-67 scintigraphy in the initial clinical staging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Masatoshi Sakurai, Takaaki Toyama, Taku Kikuchi, Jun Kato, Takayuki Shimizu, Yuya Koda, Daiki Karigane, Yusuke Yamane, Ryohei Abe, Rie Yamazaki and 5 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of hematology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

15 authors.

Masatoshi SakuraiDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Takaaki ToyamaDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Taku KikuchiDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Jun KatoDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Takayuki ShimizuDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Yuya KodaDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Daiki KariganeDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Yusuke YamaneDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Ryohei AbeDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Rie YamazakiDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Tomonori NakazatoDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Tadaki NakaharaDepartment of Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Masahiro JinzakiDepartment of Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Shinichiro OkamotoDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Takehiko MoriDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan. tmori@a3.keio.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8176-4760

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) has been recommended as a complementary tool for the staging of various malignancies, including malignant lymphoma. PET findings often shift patients to higher stages and may affect treatment outcomes. In this study, we retrospectively compared staging and treatment outcomes of newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) assessed by PET (n = 153) or gallium-67 scintigraphy (Ga) (n = 95). In total, Ga upstaged two (2.1%) of 95 patients, whereas PET upstaged 13 (8.5%) of 153 patients. Bone/bone marrow (15 vs. 4%, P = 0.01) and muscle lesion (5 vs. 0%, P = 0.03) were identified more frequently in the PET group than in the Ga group. The estimated 3-year overall and progression-free survival rates did not differ significantly in the two groups at any stage. However, patients with stage III disease tended to have better progression-free survival in the PET group than in the Ga group [92.3 (95% CI 56.6-98.9%) vs. 58.3% (95% CI 27.0-80.1%), P = 0.086]. These results suggest that PET has a greater potential in detecting musculoskeletal lesions of DLBCL as extranodal lesions than Ga, and may contribute to the optimal staging.

Indexed as

Fluorine RadioisotopesFluorodeoxyglucose F18Gallium RadioisotopesPositron-Emission TomographyRadionuclide ImagingRadiopharmaceuticalsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLymphoma, B-CellLymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseMaleMiddle AgedFluorine-18Fluorine RadioisotopesFluorodeoxyglucose F18Gallium-67Gallium RadioisotopesRadiopharmaceuticalsDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaGallium scintigraphyPositron emission tomographyStaging

Identifiers

PMID28994017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.