ArticlePloS one2023
Interobserver variability in interim PET assessment in Hodgkin lymphoma-reasons and solutions.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Positron emission tomography-adapted therapy for first-line treatment in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Baseline [BMC cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInterim PET (iPET) assessment is important for response adaptation in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). The current standard for iPET assessment is the Deauville score (DS). The aim of our study was to evaluate the causes of interobserver variability in assigning the DS for iPET in HL patients and to make suggestions for improvement.
methodsAll evaluable iPET scans from the RAPID study were re-read by two nuclear physicians, blinded to the results and patient outcomes in the RAPID trial. The iPET scans were assessed visually according to the DS and, thereafter, quantified using the qPET method. All discrepancies of more than one DS level were re-evaluated by both readers to find the reason for the discordant result.
resultsIn 249/441 iPET scans (56%) a concordant visual DS result was achieved. A "minor discrepancy" of one DS level occurred in 144 scans (33%) and a "major discrepancy" of more than one DS level in 48 scans (11%). The main causes for major discrepancies were 1) different interpretation of PET-positive lymph nodes-malignant vs. inflammatory; 2) lesions missed by one reader and 3) different assessment of lesions in activated brown fat tissue. In 51% of the minor discrepancy scans with residual lymphoma uptake, additional quantification resulted in a concordant quantitative DS result.
conclusionDiscordant visual DS assessment occurred in 44% of all iPET scans. The main reason for major discrepancies was the different interpretation of PET positive lymph nodes as malignant or inflammatory. Disagreements in evaluation of the hottest residual lymphoma lesion can be solved by the use of semi-quantitative assessment.
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.