ArticleScientific reports2021
Limited benefit of additional contrast-enhanced CT to end-of-treatment PET/CT evaluation in patients with follicular lymphoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive literature review of oral and intravenous contrast-enhanced PET/CT: a step forward?Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite follicular lymphoma (FL) is frequently characterized by a moderate increase of glucose metabolism, PET/CT examinations provides valuable information for staging and response assessment of the disease. The aim of the study was to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT, respectively, in evaluating FL patients at the end of treatment. Fifty FL consecutive patients who underwent end-of-therapy PET/CT with both ldCT and ceCT were analyzed. Two blinded observers independently assessed PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT applying the Deauville score (DS) and Lugano classification criteria. PET imaging obtained after the end-of-treatment (EoT) was classified as showing PET and ce-CT matched response (concordant imaging group, CIG) or PET and ce-CT unmatched response (discordant imaging group, DIG). Relapse rate and Event-Free Survival (EFS) were compared between CIG and DIG patients. Overall, no differences in metabolic response classification were observed between PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT. In 13 (26%) patients PET/ceCT identified additional FDG-negative nodal lesions in mesenteric, retroperitoneal and iliac regions. However, in all cases, final DS remained unchanged and the additional results did not modify the following therapeutic decision. Among patients, who obtained complete metabolic response a comparable rate of relapse was registered in DIG 3/13 (23%) and CIG subgroups 5/20 (25%) [p = 0.899]. In all 3 DIG cohort patients who relapsed the recurrent disease involved also, but not exclusively, PET negative lymph nodes detected by ceCT. In overall population metabolic response defined by PET/ldCT predicted EFS [76% (group of patients with metabolic response) vs 35% (group of patients with residual disease), p = 0.0013] significantly better than ceCT-Based response assessment [75% (group of patients with complete response) vs 53% (group of patients with residual disease), p = 0.06]. Our study demonstrates a negligible diagnostic and predictive value of ceCT performed in addition to standard
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.