ArticlePloS one2020
Quantitative assessment of interim PET in Hodgkin lymphoma: An evaluation of the qPET method in adult patients in the RAPID trial.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Positron emission tomography-adapted therapy for first-line treatment in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy plus radiotherapy for adults with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Guideline
- Imaging recommendations in pediatric lymphoma: A COG Diagnostic Imaging Committee/SPR Oncology Committee White Paper.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2023Article
- Assessment of Response to Immunotherapy in Patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma: Towards Quantifying Changes in Tumor Burden Using FDG-PET/CT.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Interobserver variability in interim PET assessment in Hodgkin lymphoma-reasons and solutions.PloS one · 2023Article
- Quantitative evaluation of interim positron emission tomography in peripheral T-cell lymphoma.EJNMMI research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimqPET is a quantitative method used to assess FDG-PET response in lymphoma. qPET was developed using 898 scans from children with Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) in the EuroNet-PHL-C1 (C1) trial. The aim of this study was to determine if qPET could be applied as an alternative response method in adults in the RAPID trial.
methodsPET-CT scans performed after 3 cycles of ABVD in RAPID were re-evaluated by an independent reader, blinded to PET results and outcome in RAPID. All initially involved regions were assessed visually and by qPET. The distribution of qPET measurements was compared for RAPID and C1 patients. Previously published qPET thresholds corresponding to visual DS (vDS) of 1-5 in C1 were used to derive quantitative DS (qDS) for RAPID patients.
resultsPET-CT scans were available for 450 patients from RAPID. vDS were 1 (171 scans), 2 (153 scans), 3 (72 scans), 4 (31 scans) and 5 (23 scans) respectively. The distribution of qPET values was similar to C1 patients, with a unimodal 'normal' distribution and a long tail to the right, suggestive of favorable response in the majority and less favorable response in the minority with outlying values. qPET thresholds from C1 applied in RAPID patients gave 86% concordance for vDS and qDS. There was 97% concordance for complete metabolic response (CMR; DS 1-3) vs. no-CMR using the Lugano classification.
conclusionqPET which was developed in pediatric patients receiving more intensive OEPA chemotherapy, was a suitable quantitative method for assessing response in adult patients treated with ABVD in a response-adapted setting in the RAPID trial.
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.