Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38473325›Full record

ArticleCancers2024

Prospective Assessment of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for Early Identification of Checkpoint-Inhibitor-Induced Pseudoprogression.

Sif Homburg, Charlotte Birk Christensen, Magnus Pedersen, Simon Grund Sørensen, Marco Donia, Inge Marie Svane, Helle Westergren Hendel, Eva Ellebaek

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Dual-time-point [EJNMMI research · 2026
    Article
  2. [Pseudoprogression after start of immunotherapy].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sif HomburgDepartment of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, 2730 Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6391-4000
Charlotte Birk ChristensenDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, 2730 Herlev, Denmark.
Magnus PedersenNational Center for Cancer Immune Therapy (CCIT-DK), Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, 2730 Herlev, Denmark.
Simon Grund SørensenDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-5494-9375
Marco DoniaNational Center for Cancer Immune Therapy (CCIT-DK), Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, 2730 Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4966-9752
Inge Marie SvaneNational Center for Cancer Immune Therapy (CCIT-DK), Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, 2730 Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9451-6037
Helle Westergren HendelDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, 2730 Herlev, Denmark.
Eva EllebaekNational Center for Cancer Immune Therapy (CCIT-DK), Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, 2730 Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6748-9232
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKAarhus University Hospital · DKGentofte Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with metastatic melanoma is often monitored using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) scans. However, distinguishing disease progression (PD) from pseudoprogression (PsPD), where increased FDG uptake might reflect immune cell activity rather than tumor growth, remains a challenge. This prospective study compared the efficacy of dual-time point (DTP) FDG-PET/CT with modified response criteria (PERCIMT) in differentiating PsPD from PD. From July 2017-January 2021, 41 patients suspected to have PsPD on an evaluation scan were prospectively included (29 evaluable). A subsequent DTP FDG-PET/CT scan was conducted within 14 days, followed by a confirmatory FDG-PET/CT scan. Additionally, PERCIMT were applied. DTP FDG-PET/CT identified 24% with PsPD and 76% with PD. Applying PERCIMT criteria, 69% showed PsPD, while 31% had PD. On follow-up, 10 patients (34%) demonstrated confirmed PsPD, while 19 (66%) exhibited PD. The sensitivity and specificity of DTP FDG-PET/CT were 20% and 74%, respectively, and for PERCIMT this was 80% and 37%, respectively. Our findings suggest limited efficacy of DTP FDG-PET/CT in distinguishing PsPD from PD in ICI-treated patients with metastatic melanoma. The use of PERCIMT could complement clinical assessment and be incorporated in multidisciplinary team conferences for enhanced decision-making.

Indexed as

dual-time point FDG-PET/CTFDG-PET/CTimmune checkpoint inhibitorsmetastatic melanomaPERCIMTpseudoprogression

Identifiers

PMID38473325
PMCPMC10931278
OpenAlexW4392232668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.