Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38654241›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2024

[

J A Adam, E Poel, B L F van Eck Smit, C H Mom, L J A Stalpers, J J Laan, E Kidd, J Stoker, S Bipat

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

J A AdamDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. j.a.adam@amsterdamumc.nl.
E PoelDepartment of Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam , Netherlands.
B L F van Eck SmitDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
C H MomDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Centre for Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
L J A StalpersDepartment of Radiotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
J J LaanDepartment of Radiotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
E KiddDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
J StokerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
S BipatDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background[

methodsIn total, 183 patients with LACC treated with chemoradiation between 2013 and 2018 were included. Patients were treated according to FIGO 2009 and retrospectively reclassified according to FIGO 2018 staging system. After validation of an existing PET-based prediction model, the predicted recurrent free survival (RFS), disease specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) at 1, 3, and 5 years, based on metabolic tumor volume (MTV), maximum standardized uptake value (SUV

resultsAll AUC values for the comparison between predicted and observed outcomes were > 0.7 except for 5-year RFS and for 5-year OS which were close to 0.7 (0.684 and 0.650 respectively). Cutoff values for low and high risk survival chance were 0.44 for the 3-year RFS and 0.47 for the 5-year OS. The FIGO 2009 system could not differentiate between the risk profiles. After reclassification according to FIGO 2018, all patients with stage IIIC2 and IVB fell in the high risk and almost all patients with stages IB2-IIIB and IVA in the low risk group. In patients with stage IIIC1 disease the FIGO stage cannot discriminate between the risk profiles.

conclusionsLow and high risk patients with LACC can be identified with the PET-based prediction model. In particular patients with stage IIIC1 need additional risk stratification besides the FIGO 2018 staging. The Kidd model could be a useful tool to aid treatment decision making in these patients. Our results also support the choice of [

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18Neoplasm StagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChemoradiotherapyFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisRadiopharmaceuticalsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsLocally advanced cervical cancerMaximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax)Metabolic tumor volume (MTV)Positron emission tomography computed tomography (PET/CT)Prognosis

Identifiers

PMID38654241
PMCPMC11040958

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.