Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35379187›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2022

18F-FDG-PET/CT in relapsed multiple myeloma: Are prognostic thresholds different from first-line therapy?

Romans Zukovs, Christina Antke, Eduards Mamlins, Lino Morris Sawicki, Annemarie Mohring, David Lopez Y Niedenhoff, Amelie Boquoi, Mustafa Kondakci, Gerald Antoch, Hans-Wilhelm Müller and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. EANM guidelines on the use of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Prognostic value ofAnnals of hematology · 2024
    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.

Romans ZukovsDepartment for Hematology, Oncology and Clinical Immunology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. Romans.Zukovs@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.
Christina AntkeClinic for Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Eduards MamlinsClinic for Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Lino Morris SawickiDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Annemarie MohringDepartment for Hematology, Oncology and Clinical Immunology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
David Lopez Y NiedenhoffDepartment for Hematology, Oncology and Clinical Immunology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Amelie BoquoiDepartment for Hematology, Oncology and Clinical Immunology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Mustafa KondakciDepartment for Oncology and Hematology, St. Lukas Clinic Solingen, 42697, Solingen, Germany.
Gerald AntochDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Hans-Wilhelm MüllerClinic for Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Roland FenkDepartment for Hematology, Oncology and Clinical Immunology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Rainer HaasDepartment for Hematology, Oncology and Clinical Immunology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEStädtisches Klinikum Solingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWhile

methodsOur retrospective study included 36 patients with MM who had received autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation, suffered at least one relapse, and underwent FDG-PET/CT at relapse. Number of focal bone lesions (FL), maximal standardised uptake value (SUVmax), and presence of PET-positive extramedullary lesions (EMD) were analysed.

resultsFor the number of FLs, the prognostic value was demonstrated with a cut-off of > 3 (median OS 3.8 months vs. not reached, p = 0.003). Median OS of patients with SUVmax ≤ 4 was not reached, while it was 3.9 months in patients with SUVmax > 4 (p = 0.014). Presence of EMD was a significant prognostic parameter too, with median OS of 3.6 months versus not reached (p = 0.004). The above-mentioned parameters showed prognostic significance for PFS as well. Combination of higher ISS stage and PET/CT parameters identified patients with particularly short OS (3.7 months vs. not reached, p < 0.001) and PFS (3.6 vs. 11.7 months p < 0.001).

conclusionThe PET/CT parameters SUVmax > 4, nFL > 3, and presence of EMD identify patients with poor prognosis not only in the first-line setting but also in relapsed MM.

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18Multiple MyelomaHumansPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPrognosisRetrospective StudiesFluorodeoxyglucose F1818FDG PET-CTMultiple myelomaPrognostic factorsRelapse

Identifiers

PMID35379187
PMCPMC8981746
OpenAlexW4226157131

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.