Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34206128›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Evaluation of the Predictive Potential of 18F-FDG PET and DWI Data Sets for Relevant Prognostic Parameters of Primary Soft-Tissue Sarcomas.

Michal Chodyla, Aydin Demircioglu, Benedikt M Schaarschmidt, Stefanie Bertram, Janna Morawitz, Sebastian Bauer, Lars Podleska, Christoph Rischpler, Michael Forsting, Ken Herrmann and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Advances inWorld journal of radiology · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Prognostic Value of Quantitative [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    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.

Michal ChodylaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Aydin DemirciogluDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0349-5590
Benedikt M SchaarschmidtDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6331-7679
Stefanie BertramInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Janna MorawitzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Dusseldorf, University of Dusseldorf, 40225 Dusseldorf, Germany.
Sebastian BauerSarcoma Center, Western German Cancer Center, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Lars PodleskaSarcoma Surgery Division, Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Christoph RischplerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Michael ForstingDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Ken HerrmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Lale UmutluDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Johannes GrueneisenDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
University of Duisburg-Essen · DEDüsseldorf University Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the potential of simultaneously acquired 18F-FDG PET- and MR-derived quantitative imaging data sets of primary soft-tissue sarcomas for the prediction of neoadjuvant treatment response, the metastatic status and tumor grade.

methodsA total of 52 patients with a high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma underwent a 18F-FDG PET/MR examination within one week before the start of neoadjuvant treatment. For each patient, the maximum tumor size, metabolic activity (SUVs), and diffusion-restriction (ADC values) of the tumor manifestations were determined. A Mann-Whitney-U test was used, and ROC analysis was performed to evaluate the potential to predict histopathological treatment response, the metastatic status or tumor grade. The results from the histopathological analysis served as reference standard.

resultsSoft-tissue sarcomas with a histopathological treatment response revealed a significantly higher metabolic activity than tumors in the non-responder group. In addition, grade 3 tumors showed a significant higher 18F-FDG uptake than grade 2 tumors. Furthermore, no significant correlation between the different outcome variables and tumor size or calculated ADC-values could be identified.

conclusionMeasurements of the metabolic activity of primary and untreated soft-tissue sarcomas could non-invasively deliver relevant information that may be used for treatment planning and risk-stratification of high-risk sarcoma patients in a pretherapeutic setting.

Indexed as

18F-FDG PETisolated limb perfusionMRIsoft-tissue sarcoma

Identifiers

PMID34206128
PMCPMC8199532
OpenAlexW3171614856

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.