Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34191171›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of hybrid imaging2020

Does a 6-point scale approach to post-treatment 18F-FDG PET-CT allow to improve response assessment in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma? A multicenter study.

P Bonomo, A Merlotti, S Morbelli, V Berti, C Saieva, F Bergesio, A Bacigalupo, L Belgioia, C Franzese, E Lopci and 18 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of hybrid imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. [BMC medical imaging · 2023
    Article
  5. 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

28 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

P BonomoRadiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero - Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3,, 50134, Florence, Italy. bonomopierlu@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8999-5208
A MerlottiRadiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy.
S MorbelliNuclear Medicine, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
V BertiNuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero - Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
C SaievaCancer Risk Factors and Lifestyle Epidemiology Unit, Institute for Cancer Research, Prevention and Clinical Network (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.
F BergesioMedical Physics, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy.
A BacigalupoRadiation Oncology, IRCSS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
L BelgioiaRadiation Oncology, IRCSS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
C FranzeseDepartment of Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Hospital - IRCSS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
E LopciNuclear Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
A CasoloNuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy.
E D'AngeloRadiation Oncology, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy.
D AlterioRadiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
L TravainiNuclear Medicine, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
L BerrettaRadiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera SS Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy.
V PirroNuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera SS Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy.
S UrsinoRadiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
D VolterraniNuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
M RoncaliNuclear Medicine, AUSL - IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
F VigoRadiation Oncology, AUSL - IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
S CicchettiRadiation Oncology, Tor Vergata University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
F ScaloneNuclear Medicine, Tor Vergata University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
G BelliRadiation Oncology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO- IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.
S CaudaNuclear Medicine, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO- IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.
I DesideriRadiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero - Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3,, 50134, Florence, Italy.
E RussiRadiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy.
L LiviRadiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero - Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3,, 50134, Florence, Italy.
A BianchiNuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITAzienda Sanitaria Ospedaliera S.Croce e Carle Cuneo · ITOspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Nazionale SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · ITAzienda Sanitaria Unità Locale di Reggio Emilia · ITCandiolo Cancer Institute · ITIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital · ITUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · ITEuropean Institute of Oncology · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITPiedmont Reference Center for Epidemiology and Cancer Prevention · ITUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeResponse assessment to definitive non-surgical treatment for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is centered on the role of

methodsWe performed a retrospective, multicenter study on HNSCC patients who received a curatively-intended, radiation-based treatment. A centralized, independent qualitative evaluation of post-treatment FDG-PET/CT scans was undertaken by 3 experienced nuclear medicine physicians who were blinded to patients' information, clinical data, and all other imaging examinations. Response to treatment was evaluated according to Hopkins, Cuneo, and Deauville criteria. The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate the PPV of Cuneo score in assessing locoregional control (LRC). We also correlated semi-quantitative metabolic factors as included in PERCIST and EORTC criteria with disease outcome.

resultsOut of a total sample of 350 patients from 11 centers, 119 subjects (oropharynx, 57.1%; HPV negative, 73.1%) had baseline and post-treatment FDG-PET/CT scans fully compliant with EANM 1.0 guidelines and were therefore included in our analysis. At a median follow-up of 42 months (range 5-98), the median locoregional control was 35 months (95% CI, 32-43), with a 74.5% 3-year rate. Cuneo score had the highest diagnostic accuracy (76.5%), with a positive predictive value for primary tumor (Tref), nodal disease (Nref), and composite TNref of 42.9%, 100%, and 50%, respectively. A Cuneo score of 5-6 (indicative of residual disease) was associated with poor overall survival at multivariate analysis (HR 6.0; 95% CI, 1.88-19.18; p = 0.002). In addition, nodal progressive disease according to PERCIST criteria was associated with worse LRC (OR for LR failure, 5.65; 95% CI, 1.26-25.46; p = 0.024) and overall survival (OR for death, 4.81; 1.07-21.53; p = 0.04).

conclusionsIn the frame of a strictly blinded methodology for response assessment, the feasibility of Cuneo score was preliminarily validated. Prospective investigations are warranted to further evaluate its reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy.

Indexed as

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomographyDiagnostic accuracyHead and neck cancerPositive predictive valueRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID34191171
PMCPMC8218061
OpenAlexW3030716384

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.