Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29104864›Full record

ReviewClinical and translational imaging2017

Imaging therapy response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) with FDG PET, CT and MRI: a systematic review.

Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, Ulrich Ronellenfitsch, Caixia Cheng, Leyun Pan, Christos Sachpekidis, Peter Hohenberger, Thomas Henzler

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and translational imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A multidisciplinary approach in the diagnostic challenge of GIST.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-StraussClinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0338-9472
Ulrich RonellenfitschDivision of Surgical Oncology and Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Caixia ChengClinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Leyun PanClinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Christos SachpekidisClinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter HohenbergerDivision of Surgical Oncology and Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Thomas HenzlerInstitute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeImprovement of the therapeutic approaches in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) by the introduction of targeted therapies requires appropriate diagnostic tools, which allow sufficient assessment of therapeutic response, including differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression due to myxoid degeneration or intratumoral hemorrhage. In this literature review the impact and limitations of different imaging modalities used in GIST therapy monitoring are discussed.

methodsPubMed and Cochrane library search were performed using appropriate keywords. Overall, 39 original papers fulfilled the defined criteria and were included in this systematic review.

resultsMorphological imaging modalities like computed tomography (CT) are primarily used for both diagnosis and therapy monitoring. However, therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and other targeted therapies in GIST may lead only to a minor tumor volume reduction even in cases of response. Therefore, the use of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) has limitations. To overcome those limitations, modified response criteria have been introduced for the CT-based therapy assessment, like the Choi criteria as well as criteria based on dual energy CT studies. Functional imaging techniques, mostly based on FDG PET-CT are in use, in particular for the assessment of early treatment response.

conclusionsThe impact and the limitations of PET-based therapy monitoring, as well as its comparison with CT, MRI and survival data are discussed in this review. CT is still the standard method for the evaluation of therapy response despite its several limitations. FDG PET-CT is helpful for the assessment of early therapy response; however, more prospective data are needed to define its role as well as the appropriate time intervals for therapy monitoring. A multiparametric evaluation based on changes in both morphological and functional data has to be assessed in further prospective studies.

Indexed as

GISTMolecular imagingOncologyPersonalized medicinePETTherapy monitoring

Identifiers

PMID29104864
PMCPMC5658474

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.