ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2021
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A study comparing the efficacy of R-CHOP and R-DA-EPOCH regimens in young, high-risk treatment-naïve diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients: a multicenter retrospective analysis.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Emerging Role of [Hematology reports · 2024Review
- Predicting diffuse large B-cell lymphoma outcomes with lesion-to-liver maximum standardized uptake value for interim-treatment and end-of-treatment positron emission tomography-computed tomography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Positron Emission Tomography Molecular Imaging for Phenotyping and Management of Lymphoma.Phenomics (Cham, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- FDG-PET/CT in Lymphoma: Where Do We Go Now?Cancers · 2021Article
- Molecular imaging with FLT: a case of Cassandra's curse?European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Beyond fluorodeoxyglucose: Molecular imaging of cancer in precision medicine.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether interim 3'-deoxy-3'-[
methodsNinety-two prospectively enrolled patients with DLBCL underwent both FLT-PET/CT and FDG-PET/CT 18-24 days after two cycles of R-CHOP/R-EPOCH. Deauville-criteria, PERCIST1.0, standardized uptake value (SUV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and metabolic tumor volume were used to interpret iFDG-PET/CT while dichotomous visual interpretation was used to interpret iFLT-PET/CT and the results were compared with the 3- and 5-year PFS.
resultsiFLT-PET/CT was negative in 67 (73%) and positive in 25 (27%) patients. iFDG-PET/CT by Deauville criteria was negative (Deauville scores [DS] of 1-3) in 53 (58%) and positive (DS = 4-5) in 39 (42%) patients. Of the 67 iFLT-PET/CT-negative patients, 7 (10.4%) progressed at a median of 14.1 months whereas 14/25 (56.0%) iFLT-PET/CT-positive patients progressed at a median of 7.8 months (P < .0001). Of the 53 Deauville-negative patients, 9 (17.0%) progressed at a median of 14.1 months whereas 12/39 (30.8%) Deauville-positive patients progressed at a median of 5.6 months (P = .11). In multivariate analysis, including iFLT-PET/CT, PERCIST, interim TLG, and interim SUV
conclusionsIn patients with DLBCL given R-CHOP/R-EPOCH, iFLT-PET/CT is a superior independent predictor of outcome compared with iFDG-PET/CT.
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.