Trial reportCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2023
PET/CT reading for relapse in non-small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy in the PET-Plan trial cohort.
Trial report in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume on [Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Trial
- Immuno-PET Imaging of EGFR withMolecular pharmaceutics · 2024Article
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 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent studies indicate that fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/ computed tomography ([
methodsThis retrospective analysis comprises 114 PET/CT data sets of 82 patients from the PET-Plan multi-center study cohort who underwent [
resultsOverall interobserver agreement (IOA) of the visual assessment was moderate with a high difference between secure (ĸ = 0.66) and insecure (ĸ = 0.24) evaluations. Additional knowledge of the initial staging PET and radiotherapy delineation volumes improved the sensitivity (0.85 vs 0.92) but did not show significant impact on the specificity (0.86 vs 0.89). PET parameters SUVmax and SULpeak showed lower accuracy compared to the visual assessment, whereas threshold-based reading showed similar sensitivity (0.86) and higher specificity (0.97).
conclusionVisual assessment especially if associated with high reader certainty shows very high interobserver agreement and high accuracy that can be further increased by baseline PET/CT information. The implementation of a patient individual liver threshold value definition, similar to the threshold definition in PERCIST, offers a more standardized method matching the accuracy of experienced readers albeit not providing further improvement of accuracy.
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.