ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
The Prognostic Utility of
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of therapeutic effect and prognostic value ofEJNMMI research · 2024Article
- Lesion-to-Liver SUVmax Ratio to Improve the Prognostic Value of the End of Treatment PET/CT in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Roughly one third of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients experience relapsed or refractory disease, and their prognosis is unsatisfactory. It is thus important to identify patients who respond poorly to first-line treatment. Some studies have evaluated the prognostic value of interim PET-CT (iPET-CT) or end-of-treatment PET-CT (ePET-CT) in lymphoma patients, but there have been few studies exploring the prognostic value of metabolic response rates in the evaluation of DLBCL patients. Methods: Consecutive newly diagnosed DLBCL patients were screened from March 2013 to June 2020. Patients received at least four cycles of chemotherapy, and underwent baseline, iPET-CT and ePET-CT scanning. Kaplan-Meier survival curves with log-rank tests were employed to assess survival outcomes including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Independent predictors of survival were identified through univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses. Results: 307 patients were evaluated. At the time of iPET-CT scanning, 250, 45, and 12 patients exhibited complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and stable disease (SD)/progressive disease (PD), respectively. The percentage of negative iPET-CT was 81.4% (250/307). Among 295 patients with ePET-CT, 262 (88.8%) achieved negativity and 33 (11.2%) exhibited positivity including 26 PR and 7 PD. The 2-year PFS and 2-year OS for patients with iPET-CT positivity were 50.7% and 76.5%, respectively, and were significantly shorter than those for patients with iPET-CT negativity (2-year PFS 82.7%, Conclusions: Our results suggest that the speed of metabolic response to treatment is of limited prognostic value in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients. Patients exhibiting PR at iPET-CT evaluation should carefully consider whether to change chemotherapy regimen.
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.