Trial reportPloS one2018
The 18F-FDG PET/CT response to radiotherapy for patients with spinal metastasis correlated with the clinical outcomes.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal Nuclear Imaging Response as a Prognostic Indicator Following Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Does quantification have a role to play in the future of bone SPECT?European journal of hybrid imaging · 2019Review
- Radiomic signature ofTheranostics · 2018Article
- Positron Emission Tomography-Derived Metrics Predict the Probability of Local Relapse After Oligometastasis-Directed Ablative Radiation Therapy.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the potential role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for predicting treatment response after radiotherapy (RT) in patients with spinal metastases. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed of 42 patients with spinal metastases who received RT from January 2010 to December 2014. All patients underwent FDG-PET/CT before and after treatment. Changes in metabolic responses, expressed as the maximum, mean, peak standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak), metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were analyzed to determine their association with clinical outcomes.
resultsThe median age at the time of spinal metastasis diagnosis was 58 years. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival after RT were 15 months and 22.4 months, respectively. RT produced a significant decrease in SUVmean (2.27 to 1.41), SUVmax (6.87 to 2.99), SUVpeak (5.75 to 2.33) and TLG (52.84 to 24.17) when compared with the baseline values (p<0.001). The mean pain score decreased from 3.86 before RT to 0.79 after RT (p<0.001). There were significant linear relationships between maximum SUV and pain scores at baseline (r = 0.321, p = 0.038) and after treatment (r = 0.369, p = 0.016) as well as TLG at baseline (r = 0.428, p = 0.005) and after treatment (r = 0.403, p = 0.009). Local progression after treatment was identified in 12 patients (28.6%). Univariate analyses showed that >70% reduction in maximum SUV after treatment was independently associated with good PFS (p = 0.036).
conclusionsRT is an effective treatment for patients with spinal metastases, and there were significant changes in PET parameters compared with baseline. The metabolic response measured by SUV and TLG changes in FDG-PET/CT correlated with the clinical outcomes, especially with shorter PFS in patients who had higher residual maximum SUV after treatment.
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.