ArticleCancers2022
Assessment of Treatment Response to Lenvatinib in Thyroid Cancer Monitored by F-18 FDG PET/CT Using PERCIST 1.0, Modified PERCIST and EORTC Criteria-Which One Is Most Suitable?
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: We aimed to compare the established metabolic response criteria PERCIST and EORTC for their applicability and predictive value in terms of clinical response assessment early after the initiation of lenvatinib therapy in patients with metastatic radioiodine-refractory (RAI) thyroid cancer (TC). Methods: In 25 patients treated with lenvatinib, baseline and 4-month follow-up F-18 FDG PET/CT images were analyzed using PERCIST 1.0, modified PERCIST (using SUVpeak or SUVmax) and EORTC criteria. Two groups were defined: disease control (DC) and progressive disease (PD), which were correlated with PFS and OS. Results: PERCIST, mPERCIST, PERCISTmax and EORTC could be applied in 80%, 80%, 88% and 100% of the patients based on the requirements of lesion assessment criteria, respectively. With PERCIST, mPERCIST, PERCISTmax and EORTC, the patients classified as DC and PD ranged from 65 to 68% and from 32 to 35%, respectively. Patients with DC exhibited a longer median PFS than patients with PD for EORTC (p < 0.014) and for PERCIST and mPERCIST (p = 0.037), respectively. Conclusion: EORTC and the different PERCIST criteria performed equally regarding the identification of patients with PD requiring treatment changes. However, the applicability of PERCIST 1.0 using SULpeak seems restricted due to the significant proportion of small tumor lesions.
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.