ArticleCancers2021
Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Patients with Unresectable Recurrent Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma Shown by FDG-PET and CT.
Article in Cancers, 2021. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcome prediction based on [18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with pleural mesothelioma treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab +/- UV1 telomerase vaccine.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Trial
- Article
- Epithelioid pleural mesothelioma successfully treated with perioperative immunotherapy: a case report.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery cases · 2024Article
- Radiographic response to neoadjuvant therapy in pleural mesothelioma should serve as a guide for patient selection for cytoreductive operations.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Immune-related dissociated response as a specific atypical response pattern in solid tumors with immune checkpoint blockade.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2022Article
- Malignant Mesothelioma.Cancers · 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
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare three FDG-PET criteria (EORTC, PERCIST, imPERCIST) with CT criteria (combined modified RECIST and RECIST 1.1) for response evaluation and prognosis prediction in patients with recurrent MPM treated with ICI monotherapy.
methodsThirty MPM patients underwent FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT at the baseline and during nivolumab therapy (median 10 cycles). Therapeutic response was evaluated according to EORTC, PERCIST, imPERCIST, and CT criteria. PFS and OS were examined using log-rank and Cox methods.
resultsCMR/PMR/SMD/PMD numbered 5/3/4/18 for EORTC, 5/1/7/17 for PERCIST, and 5/3/9/13 for imPERCIST. With CT, CR/PR/SD/PD numbered 0/6/10/14. There was high concordance between EORTC and PERCIST (κ = 0.911), and PERCIST and imPERCIST (κ = 0.826), while that between EORTC and imPERCIST (κ = 0.746) was substantial, and between CT and the three PET criteria moderate (κ = 0.516-0.544). After median 14.9 months, 26 patients showed progression and nine died. According to both PET and CT findings, patients with no progression (CMR/PMR/SMD or CR/PR/SD) showed significantly longer PFS and somewhat longer OS than PMD and PD patients (EORTC
conclusionsBoth FDG-PET and CT criteria are accurate for response evaluation of ICI therapy and prediction of MPM prognosis. In comparison with CT, all three FDG-PET/CT criteria judged a greater percentage of patients (16.7%) as CMR, while two (EORTC, PERCIST) judged a greater percentage (10-13.3%) as PMD. For predicting PFS, the three FDG-PET criteria were superior to the CT criteria, and imPERCIST demonstrated the highest rate of accurate prediction.
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.