Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37001036›Full record

ArticleBlood2023

Baseline PET radiomics outperforms the IPI risk score for prediction of outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

J J Eertink, G J C Zwezerijnen, M W Heymans, S Pieplenbosch, S E Wiegers, U Dührsen, A Hüttmann, L Kurch, C Hanoun, P J Lugtenburg and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Blood, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. BMC medical imaging · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Validation of an AI Method for Automated Lymphoma Metabolic Tumor Volume Segmentation Using a Public Benchmark PET/CT Dataset.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. BaselineFrontiers in oncology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Integration of [Leukemia · 2025
    Article
  18. Summary Report of the SNMMI AI Task Force Radiomics Challenge 2024.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

J J EertinkHematology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6094-0016
G J C ZwezerijnenImaging and Biomarkers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9571-9362
M W HeymansEpidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3889-0921
S PieplenboschImaging and Biomarkers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7897-6383
S E WiegersImaging and Biomarkers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3698-8121
U DührsenDepartment of Hematology, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4034-9472
A HüttmannDepartment of Hematology, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2230-3873
L KurchKlinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3396-4880
C HanounDepartment of Hematology, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
P J LugtenburgDepartment of Hematology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6735-8651
S F BarringtonKing's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' PET Centre, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's Health Partners, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2516-5288
N G MikhaeelDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Guy's Cancer Centre and School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London University, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0359-0328
L CerianiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT Centre, Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Bellinzona, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6371-097X
E ZuccaSAKK Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5522-6109
S CziborDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-7679-3137
T GyörkeDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-8772-9931
M E D ChamuleauHematology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0123-9182
O S HoekstraImaging and Biomarkers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0767-2734
H C W de VetEpidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5454-2804
R BoellaardImaging and Biomarkers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0313-5686
J M ZijlstraHematology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1074-5922

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203148/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study is to externally validate the clinical positron emission tomography (PET) model developed in the HOVON-84 trial and to compare the model performance of our clinical PET model using the international prognostic index (IPI). In total, 1195 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were included in the study. Data of 887 patients from 6 studies were used as external validation data sets. The primary outcomes were 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and 2-year time to progression (TTP). The metabolic tumor volume (MTV), maximum distance between the largest lesion and another lesion (Dmaxbulk), and peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak) were extracted. The predictive values of the IPI and clinical PET model (MTV, Dmaxbulk, SUVpeak, performance status, and age) were tested. Model performance was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC), and diagnostic performance, using the positive predictive value (PPV). The IPI yielded an AUC of 0.62. The clinical PET model yielded a significantly higher AUC of 0.71 (P < .001). Patients with high-risk IPI had a 2-year PFS of 61.4% vs 51.9% for those with high-risk clinical PET, with an increase in PPV from 35.5% to 49.1%, respectively. A total of 66.4% of patients with high-risk IPI were free from progression or relapse vs 55.5% of patients with high-risk clinical PET scores, with an increased PPV from 33.7% to 44.6%, respectively. The clinical PET model remained predictive of outcome in 6 independent first-line DLBCL studies, and had higher model performance than the currently used IPI in all studies.

Indexed as

Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansPositron-Emission TomographyPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsFluorodeoxyglucose F18

Identifiers

PMID37001036
PMCPMC10646814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.