Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34476551›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2022

Aberrant patterns of PET response during treatment for DLBCL patients with MYC gene rearrangements.

J J Eertink, A I J Arens, J E Huijbregts, F Celik, B de Keizer, S Stroobants, D de Jong, S E Wiegers, G J C Zwezerijnen, C N Burggraaff and 7 more

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

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2022. 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
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

17 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

J J EertinkDepartment of Hematology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6094-0016
A I J ArensDepartment of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7066-5372
J E HuijbregtsDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Gelre Ziekenhuizen, Albert Schweitzerlaan 31, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9325-2343
F CelikDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Deventer Ziekenhuis, Nico Bolkesteinlaan 75, Deventer, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6486-0435
B de KeizerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6270-9483
S StroobantsDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Antwerp University Hospital (UZA), Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6450-9944
D de JongDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9725-4060
S E WiegersDepartment of Hematology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3698-8121
G J C ZwezerijnenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9571-9362
C N BurggraaffDepartment of Hematology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5863-6528
R BoellaardDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0313-5686
H C W de VetDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5454-2804
O S HoekstraDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0767-2734
P J LugtenburgDepartment of Hematology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6735-8651
M E D ChamuleauDepartment of Hematology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0123-9182
J M ZijlstraDepartment of Hematology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.zijlstra@amsterdamumc.nl.
HOVON imaging workgroup
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAntwerp University Hospital · BEDeventer Ziekenhuis · NLErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLGelre Hospitals · NLHeidelberg University · DERadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMYC gene rearrangements in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients are associated with poor prognosis. Our aim was to compare patterns of 2[

methodsInterim PET/CT (I-PET) and end of treatment PET/CT (EoT-PET) scans of 81 MYC + and 129 MYC- DLBCL patients from 2 HOVON trials were reviewed using the Deauville 5-point scale (DS). DS1-3 was regarded as negative and DS4-5 as positive. Standardized uptake values (SUV) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) were quantified at baseline, I-PET, and EoT-PET. Negative (NPV) and positive predictive values (PPV) were calculated using 2-year overall survival.

resultsMYC + DLBCL patients had significantly more positive EoT-PET scans than MYC- patients (32.5 vs 15.7%, p = 0.004). I-PET positivity rates were comparable (28.8 vs 23.8%). In MYC + patients 23.2% of the I-PET negative patients converted to positive at EoT-PET, vs only 2% for the MYC- patients (p = 0.002). Nine (34.6%) MYC + DLBCL showed initially uninvolved localizations at EoT-PET, compared to one (5.3%) MYC- patient. A total of 80.8% of EoT-PET positive MYC + patients showed both increased lesional SUV and MTV compared to I-PET. In MYC- patients, 31.6% showed increased SUV and 42.1% showed increased MTV. NPV of I-PET and EoT-PET was high for both MYC subgroups (81.8-94.1%). PPV was highest at EoT-PET for MYC + patients (61.5%).

conclusionMYC + DLBCL patients demonstrate aberrant PET response patterns compared to MYC- patients with more frequent progression during treatment after I-PET negative assessment and new lesions at sites that were not initially involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: HOVON-84: EudraCT: 2006-005,174-42, retrospectively registered 01-08-2008. HOVON-130: EudraCT: 2014-002,654-39, registered 26-01-2015.

Indexed as

Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffusePositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyFluorodeoxyglucose F18Gene RearrangementHumansPositron-Emission TomographyPrognosisRetrospective StudiesFluorodeoxyglucose F1818F FDG PET/CTDeauville scoreDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaMYC rearrangementResponse

Identifiers

PMID34476551
PMCPMC8803795
OpenAlexW3198240721

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.