ArticleCancer medicine2023
Is local review of positron emission tomography scans sufficient in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma clinical trials? A CALGB 50303 analysis.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A study comparing the efficacy of R-CHOP and R-DA-EPOCH regimens in young, high-risk treatment-naïve diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients: a multicenter retrospective analysis.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Optimization of CAR-T therapy based on metabolic remodeling of the tumor immune microenvironment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.American journal of cancer research · 2025Review
- Quantitative evaluation of lesion response heterogeneity for superior prognostication of clinical outcome.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Is local review of positron emission tomography scans sufficient in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma clinical trials? A CALGB 50303 analysis.Cancer medicine · 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
15 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuantitative methods of Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET) interpretation, including the percent change in FDG uptake from baseline (ΔSUV), are under investigation in lymphoma to overcome challenges associated with visual scoring systems (VSS) such as the Deauville 5-point scale (5-PS).
methodsIn CALGB 50303, patients with DLBCL received frontline R-CHOP or DA-EPOCH-R, and although there were no significant associations between interim PET responses assessed centrally after cycle 2 (iPET) using 5-PS with progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), there were significant associations between central determinations of iPET ∆SUV with PFS/OS. In this patient cohort, we retrospectively compared local vs central iPET readings and evaluated associations between local imaging data and survival outcomes.
resultsAgreement between local and central review was moderate (kappa = 0.53) for VSS and high (kappa = 0.81) for ∆SUV categories (<66% vs. ≥66%). ∆SUV ≥66% at iPET was significantly associated with PFS (p = 0.03) and OS (p = 0.002), but VSS was not. Associations with PFS/OS when applying local review vs central review were comparable.
conclusionsThese data suggest that local PET interpretation for response determination may be acceptable in clinical trials. Our findings also highlight limitations of VSS and call for incorporation of more objective measures of response assessment in clinical trials.
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.