ArticleCancers2020
Prognostic Impact of Pretherapeutic FDG-PET in Localized Anal Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Pooled it
- Intensity threshold based solid tumour segmentation method for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) images: A review.Heliyon · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the heterogeneity of tumour mass segmentation methods and lack of consensus, our study evaluated the prognostic value of pretherapeutic positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) metabolic parameters using different segmentation methods in patients with localized anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Eighty-one patients with FDG-PET before radiochemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. Semiquantitative data were measured with three fixed thresholds (35%, 41% and 50% of Maximum Standardized Uptake Value (SUVmax)) and four segmentation methods based on iterative approaches (Black, Adaptive, Nestle and Fitting). Metabolic volumes of primary anal tumour (P-MTV) and total tumour load (T-MTV: P-MTV+ lymph node MTV) were calculated. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). Seven multivariate models were created to compare FDG-PET tumour volumes prognostic impact. For all segmentation thresholds, PET metabolic volume parameters were independent prognostic factor and T-MTV variable was consistently better associated with EFS than P-MTV. Patient's sex was an independent variable and significantly correlated with EFS. With fixed threshold segmentation methods, 35% of SUVmax threshold seemed better correlated with EFS and the best cut-off for discrimination between a low and high risk of event occurrence was 40 cm
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.