Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33515158›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of hematology2021

Biopsy remains indispensable for evaluating bone marrow involvement in DLBCL patients despite the use of positron emission tomography.

Yusuke Saiki, Naoto Tomita, Akiko Uchida, Yu Uemura, Yoshinori Suzuki, Tsuneaki Hirakawa, Masayuki Kato, Masahiro Hoshikawa, Tsuyoshi Kawano, Naoya Nakamura and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of hematology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yusuke SaikiDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan.
Naoto TomitaDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan. ntomita@marianna-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5441-1177
Akiko UchidaDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan.
Yu UemuraDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan.
Yoshinori SuzukiDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan.
Tsuneaki HirakawaDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan.
Masayuki KatoDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan.
Masahiro HoshikawaDepartment of Pathology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan.
Tsuyoshi KawanoDepartment of Radiology, YUAI Clinic, Yokohama, Japan.
Naoya NakamuraDepartment of Pathology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan.
Ikuo MiuraDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan.
Ayako AraiDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan.
St. Marianna University School of Medicine · JPTokai University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Initial staging by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scanning is recommended for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Whether both PET/CT and bone marrow biopsy (BMB) are required remains unclear. This study examined whether staging by PET/CT is sufficient. Participants with untreated DLBCL assessed using both PET/CT and BMB were included. Patients received independent diagnostic assessments from a radiologist and a hematopathologist. Both hematoxylin-eosin staining and CD20 immunostaining were performed to determine the bone marrow involvement in BMB. A total of 84 patients were included. The number of patients with positive bone marrow involvement identified by PET/CT and BMB was 16 (19%) and 22 (26%), respectively. Eight (10%) patients showed positive results in both tests. When considering BMB as a reference, PET/CT showed 36% sensitivity and 87% specificity, with positive and negative predictive values of 50% and 79%, respectively. BMB-positive patients had shorter progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival than their BMB-negative counterparts. Compared to PET/CT-negative patients, patients with positive results did not show any significant differences in PFS and OS. However, among 16 PET/CT-positive patients, poor PFS and OS were observed among patients who were also BMB positive. BMB remains a mandatory step in staging of untreated DLBCL patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyBone MarrowFemaleHumansLymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPrognosisYoung AdultBone marrow biopsyDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaPositron emission tomographyStaging

Identifiers

PMID33515158
OpenAlexW3122464627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.