ArticleBMC cancer2022
Reflecting on the utility of standardized uptake values on
Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-radiomics-SUVmax integration fromFrontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Novel prediction model combining PET/CT metabolic parameters, inflammation markers, and TNM stage: prospects for personalizing prognosis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024Article
- The Utility ofClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2024Article
- Prognostic value of lymph node-to-primary tumor ratio of PET standardized uptake value for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a recursive partitioning risk stratification analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024Article
- PET/CT standardized uptake value and EGFR expression predicts treatment failure in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo rethink the clinical significance of standardized uptake values (SUVs) of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) on
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 369 NPC patients who underwent pretreatment
resultsThe optimal SUVmax-t and SUVmax-n cutoffs were 7.5 and 6.9, respectively. High SUVmax-t and SUVmax-n were related to local and regional recurrence, respectively. Patients with low SUVmax had better 3-year overall survival (OS). To avoid cross-sensitization of cutoff points, we stratified patients with high SUVmax into the low and high NTR groups. The 3-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS; 92.3 vs. 80.6%, P = 0.009), progression-free survival (PFS; 84.0 vs. 67.7%, P = 0.011), and OS (95.9 vs. 89.2%, P = 0.002) significantly differed between the high vs. low NTR groups for patients with high SUVmax. Multivariable analysis showed that NTR was an independent prognostic factor for DMFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.037, 95% CI: 1.039-3.992, P = 0.038), PFS (HR: 1.636, 95% CI: 1.021-2.621, P = 0.041), and OS (HR: 2.543, 95% CI: 1.214-5.325, P = 0.013).
conclusionHigh SUVmax was associated with NPC recurrence. NTR is a potential prognosticator for DMFS, suggesting that heterogeneity in the pretreatment
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.