ArticleBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2023
Prospective Evaluation of FDG-PET/CT for On-treatment Assessment of Response to Neoadjuvant or Induction Chemotherapy in Invasive Bladder Cancer.
Article in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeoadjuvant/induction chemotherapy (NAIC) improves survival in patients with muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma (MIBC). On-treatment response assessment may aid in decisions to continue or cease NAIC.
objectiveWe investigated whether
methodsWe prospectively included 83 patients treated for MIBC (i.e. high-risk cT2-4N0M0 or cT1-4N+M0-1a) between 2014 and 2018. Response to NAIC was assessed after 2-3 cycles with FDG-PET/CT (Peter-Mac and EORTC criteria) and CECT (RECIST1.1 criteria). We assessed prediction of complete pathological response (pCR; ypT0N0), complete pathological down-staging (pCD;≤ypT1N0), any down-staging from baseline (ypTN < cTN) and progression (inoperable tumor/ypN+/M+). The reference standard was histopathological assessment or clinical follow-up. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated.
resultsPathological response rates were 21% for pCR, 29% for pCD, and 10% progressed. All patients underwent FDG-PET/CT and 61 patients also underwent CECT (73%). Accuracy of FDG-PET/CT for prediction of pCR, pCD, and progression were 73%, 48%, and 73%, respectively. Accuracy of CECT for prediction of pCR, pCD, and progression were 78%, 65%, and 67%, respectively. Specificity of CECT was significantly higher than FDG-PET/CT for prediction of pCD and any down-staging (
conclusionsRoutine FDG-PET/CT has insufficient predictive power to aid in response assessment compared to CECT.
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.