ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2024
Comparative evaluation of
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of various positron emission tomography tracers in differentiating primary central nervous system lymphoma from glioblastoma multiforme.EJNMMI reports · 2026Article
- The Role of 11C-Methionine PET Imaging for the Evaluation of Lymphomas: A Systematic Review.Hematology reports · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDistinguishing between primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-wildtype glioblastoma is important for therapeutic decision-making. This study aimed to compare the performance of
methodsWe retrospectively conducted qualitative and semiquantitative analyses of pre-treatment MET and FDG PET/computed tomography (CT) images of 22 patients with PCNSL and 64 patients with IDH-wildtype glioblastoma. For semiquantitative analysis, we calculated the tumor-to-normal tissue (T/N) ratio by dividing the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) for the tumor (T) by the average SUV for the normal tissue (N). For performance evaluation, we employed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and calculated the areas under the curve (AUC) values.
resultsIn the qualitative analysis, all PCNSLs and IDH-wildtype glioblastomas were MET-positive, while 95% and 84% of PCNSLs and IDH-wildtype glioblastomas, respectively, were FDG-positive. Eleven patients were excluded from the FDG PET/CT semiquantitative analysis because of hyperglycemia. There was no difference in MET T/N ratio between PCNSL and IDH-wildtype glioblastoma (p = 0.37). FDG T/N ratio was significantly higher in PCNSL than in IDH-wildtype glioblastoma (p < 0.001). The AUC value for distinguishing PCNSL from IDH-wildtype glioblastoma was significantly higher for the FDG T/N ratio (0.871) than for the MET T/N ratio (0.565) (p = 0.0027).
conclusionMET PET could detect both PCNSL and IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, but unlike FDG PET, it could not distinguish between these two major malignant brain tumors.
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.