ArticleClinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia2020
Evaluating Novel PET-CT Functional Parameters TLG and TMTV in Differentiating Low-grade Versus Grade 3A Follicular Lymphoma.
Article in Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- An explainable transformer model integrating PET and tabular data for histologic grading and prognosis of follicular lymphoma: a multi-institutional digital biopsy study.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- The Predictive Role of BaselineDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Predicting time to treatment in follicular lymphoma on watchful waiting using baseline metabolic tumour burden.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Prediction of prognosis and pathologic grade in follicular lymphoma usingFrontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Current trends in diagnosis and management of follicular lymphoma.American journal of blood research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFollicular lymphoma (FL) grading, low-grade 1-2 (LG) versus grade 3A (3A), informs management. However, accurate grading is challenging owing to disease heterogeneity and inter-reader variability. The [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) parameter maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) has utility in differentiating LG from 3A FL, but the utility of novel parameters total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV) is unknown. PATIENTS AND
methodsRetrospective review of diagnostic pre-treatment PET-CTs of patients aged > 18 years with FL grades 1-3A from 2009-2017 was performed. PET-CT parameters SUVmax, TLG, and TMTV values were generated using manual (MW) and semi-automated workflows (SW). Poisson regression and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare PET-CT parameters between LG and 3A.
resultsA total of 49 patients with FL were identified: 38 LG and 11 3A. PET-CT parameters were significantly higher in 3A as compared with LG in both workflows. The cutoff values, sensitivities, and specificities were as follows: SUVmax: 10.4, 64%, and 74% in MW and 11.9, 73%, and 76% in SW; TLG: 543, 82%, and 74% in MW and 371, 73%, and 74% in SW; and TMTV: 141, 73%, and 76% in MW and 93, 64%, and 76% in SW. SUVmax had identical cutoff, sensitivity, and specificity across all 3 SWs, whereas TLG and TMTV had considerable variance across all 3 SWs.
conclusionsTLG and TMTV are comparable to SUVmax in differentiating LG versus 3A FL. Cutoffs, sensitivities, and specificities varied in MW versus SW. Novel PET-CT parameters serve as reproducible adjuncts but not replacements for biopsy in differentiating grades of FL.
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.