Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29110648›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2017

Prospective study of

Shoji Yomo, Kazuhiro Oguchi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. The British journal of radiology · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Treatment Monitoring of Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy UsingJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2021
    Article
  18. [Cancers · 2021
    Article
  19. [EJNMMI research · 2020
    Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shoji YomoDivision of Radiation Oncology, Aizawa Comprehensive Cancer Center, Aizawa Hospital, 2-5-1, Honjo, Matsumoto-city, Nagano-prefecturem, Japan. yomoshoji@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7426-7654
Kazuhiro OguchiPositron Imaging Center, Aizawa Hospital, 2-5-1, Honjo, Matsumoto-city, Nagano-prefecturem, Japan.
Aizawa Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOn conventional diagnostic imaging, the features of radiation necrosis (RN) are similar to those of local recurrence (LR) of brain metastases (BM).

methodsThe eligible subjects had enlarging contrast-enhanced lesions (>1 cm) on MR imaging after any form of radiotherapy for BM, suggesting LR or RN. However, it was difficult to differentiate LR from RN in these cases. From August 2013 to February 2017, MET-PET was performed for 37 lesions in 32 eligible patients. Tracer accumulation in the regions of interest was analysed as the standardised uptake value (SUV) and maximal lesion SUV/maximal normal tissue SUV ratios (LNR) were calculated. The cut-off value for LNR was provisionally set at 1.40. Salvage treatment strategies determined based on MET-PET diagnosis and treatment results were investigated. The diagnostic accuracy of MET-PET was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

resultsThe median interval from primary radiotherapy to MET-PET was 19 months and radiotherapy had been performed twice or more for 13 lesions. The MET-PET diagnoses were LR in 19 and RN in 18 lesions. The mean values and standard deviation of LNRs for each diagnostic category were 1.70 ± 0.30 and 1.09 ± 0.25, respectively. At the median follow-up time of 18 months, final diagnoses were confirmed histologically for 17 lesions and clinically for 20 lesions. ROC curve analysis indicated the optimal LNR cut-off value to be 1.40 (area under the curve: 0.84), and the sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 and 0.75, respectively. The median survival times of patient groups with LR and RN based on MET-PET diagnosis were 14.8 months and 35.1 months, respectively (P = 0.035, log-rank test).

conclusionsMET-PET showed apparently reliable diagnostic performance for distinguishing between LR and RN. The provisional LNR cut-off value of 1.4 in our institution was found to be appropriate. Limitations of diagnostic accuracy should be recognised in cases with LNR close to this cut-off value.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain NeoplasmsCarbon RadioisotopesDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleMethionineMiddle AgedPositron-Emission TomographyProspective StudiesRadiation InjuriesROC CurveCarbon RadioisotopesMethionine11C–methionineBrain metastasesLocal recurrencePositron emission tomographyRadiation necrosis

Identifiers

PMID29110648
PMCPMC5674753
OpenAlexW2767887668

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.