Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33340280›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2021

Metabolic response as assessed by

Douglas J Harrison, Yueh-Yun Chi, Jing Tian, Pooja Hingorani, Leo Mascarenhas, Geoffrey B McCowage, Brenda J Weigel, Rajkumar Venkatramani, Suzanne L Wolden, Torunn I Yock and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

18 authors at 15 institutions in 2 countries.

Douglas J HarrisonUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6776-4852
Yueh-Yun ChiUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Jing TianUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Pooja HingoraniUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Leo MascarenhasChildren's Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Geoffrey B McCowageThe Children's Hospital at Westmead, Weastmead, NSW, Australia.
Brenda J WeigelUniversity of Minnesota/Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Rajkumar VenkatramaniBaylor College of Medicine/Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Suzanne L WoldenMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Torunn I YockMassachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA.
David A RodebergEast Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.
Andrea A Hayes-JordanUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Lisa A TeotBoston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Sheri L SpuntLucile Packard Children's Hospital Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1669-2676
William H MeyerUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Douglas S HawkinsSeattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.
Barry L ShulkinSaint Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
Marguerite T ParisiSeattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.
Seattle Children's Hospital · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Florida · USBaylor College of Medicine · USBoston Children's Hospital · USChildren's Hospital at Westmead · AUEast Carolina University · USLucile Packard Children's Hospital · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USSt. Jude Children's Research Hospital · USUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Minnesota · USUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

NCTN BIQSFP ANBL1531 (NRT)U10CA180886 · NCI · PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE · PI Douglas S. Hawkins · 2014 to 2026
$390.6M
X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
COG FOREIGN ACCRUALU10CA098543 · NCI · NATIONAL CHILDHOOD CANCER FOUNDATION · PI ADAMSON, PETER C. · 2003 to 2013
$335.5M
COG SDMC - Statistics CoreU10CA180899 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI TODD A ALONZO · 2014 to 2026
$132.8M
IROC: Enhancing local enrolling site radiological data capture capabilities for NCTN trialsU24CA180803 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI Thomas J. FitzGerald, MICHAEL V KNOPP · 2014 to 2026
$116.2M
Children's Oncology Group Statistics &Data Center GrantU10CA098413 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER · PI DEVIDAS, MEENAKSHI · 2003 to 2013
$67.5M
QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW CENTER (QARC)U10CA029511 · NCI · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI FITZGERALD, THOMAS J. · 1985 to 2013
$23.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS U10 CA029511NCI NIH HHS U10 CA098413NCI NIH HHS U10 CA098543NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180886NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180899NCI NIH HHS U24 CA180803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrategies to optimize management in rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) include risk stratification to assign therapy aiming to minimize treatment morbidity yet improve outcomes. This analysis evaluated the relationship between complete metabolic response (CMR) as assessed by

methodsFDG-PET imaging characteristics, including assessment of CMR and maximum standard uptake values (SUVmax) of the primary tumor, were evaluated by central review. Institutional reports of SUVmax were used when SUVmax values could not be determined by central review. One hundred and thirty IR and 105 HR patients had FDG-PET scans submitted for central review or had SUVmax data available from institutional report at any time point. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the relationship between these parameters and EFS.

resultsSUVmax at study entry did not correlate with EFS for IR (p = 0.32) or HR (p = 0.86) patients. Compared to patients who did not achieve a CMR, EFS was not superior for IR patients who achieved a CMR at weeks 4 (p = 0.66) or 15 (p = 0.46), nor for HR patients who achieved CMR at week 6 (p = 0.75) or 19 (p = 0.28). Change in SUVmax at week 4 (p = 0.21) or 15 (p = 0.91) for IR patients or at week 6 (p = 0.75) or 19 (p = 0.61) for HR patients did not correlate with EFS.

conclusionBased on these data, FDG-PET does not appear to predict EFS in IR or HR-RMS. It remains to be determined whether FDG-PET has a role in predicting survival outcomes in other RMS subpopulations.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorChildChild, PreschoolCombined Modality TherapyFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18Follow-Up StudiesHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPrognosisRadiopharmaceuticalsRhabdomyosarcomaSurvival RateBiomarkers, TumorFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticalschemotherapycomplete metabolic responsemaximum standard uptake value (SUVmax)pediatricpositron emission tomographyrhabdomyosarcoma

Identifiers

PMID33340280
PMCPMC7897958
OpenAlexW3115593366

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.