ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
[18F]FDG PET/CT Integration in Evaluating Immunotherapy for Lung Cancer: A Clinician's Practical Approach.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- PET/CT imaging for assessment of tumor immunotherapy response: a new perspective on tumor metabolic reprogramming and immune escape.La Radiologia medica · 2026Review
- Imaging Immunotherapy.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026Review
- The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Monitoring Immunotherapy Response in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Current Evidence and Challenges: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Comparison of PERCIST5, imPERCIST5, and PERCIMT Criteria for Early Assessment of Pembrolizumab Response with FDG-PET/CT in Metastatic Bladder Cancer Patients.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized the treatment paradigm of lung cancer, resulting in notable enhancements in patient survival. Nevertheless, evaluating treatment response in patients undergoing immunotherapy poses distinct challenges due to unconventional response patterns like pseudoprogressive disease (PPD), dissociated response (DR), and hyperprogressive disease (HPD). Conventional response criteria such as the RECIST 1.1 may not adequately address these complexities. To tackle this issue, novel response criteria such as the iRECIST and imRECIST have been proposed, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of treatment response by incorporating additional scans and considering the best overall response even after radiologic progressive disease evaluation. Additionally, [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging has emerged as a valuable modality for evaluating treatment response, with various metabolic response criteria such as the PERCIMT, imPERCIST, and iPERCIST developed to overcome the limitations of traditional criteria, particularly in detecting pseudoprogression. A multidisciplinary approach involving oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine specialists is crucial for effectively navigating these complexities and enhancing patient outcomes in the era of immunotherapy for lung cancer. In this review, we delineate the key components of these guidelines, summarizing essential aspects for radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians. Furthermore, we provide insights into how imaging can guide the management of individual lung cancer patients in real-world multidisciplinary settings.
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.