Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40371889›Full record

ArticleHaematologica2025

Risk prediction in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma improves when combining baseline PET features with interim PET response.

Jakoba J Eertink, Martijn W Heymans, Sanne E Wiegers, Annelies L Bes, Ulrich Duhrsen, Andreas Huttmann, Lars Kurch, Sally F Barrington, George N Mikhaeel, Pieternella J Lugtenburg and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Haematologica, 2025. 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

18 authors.

Jakoba J EertinkAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Hematology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam.
Martijn W HeymansAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health research Institute, Methodology, Amsterdam.
Sanne E WiegersAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Hematology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam.
Annelies L BesAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Hematology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam.
Ulrich DuhrsenDepartment of Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen.
Andreas HuttmannDepartment of Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen.
Lars KurchKlinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig.
Sally F BarringtonKing's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' PET Centre, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's Health Partners, Kings College London, London.
George N MikhaeelDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Guy's Cancer Centre and School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London University, London.
Pieternella J LugtenburgErasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, department of Hematology, Rotterdam.
Luca CerianiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT Centre, IIMSI - Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Bellinzona Switzerland; SAKK - Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Bern.
Emanuele ZuccaDepartment of Oncology, IOSI - Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona; Università della Svizzera Italiana, Bellinzona, Switzerland; SAKK - Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Bern.
Tamas GyorkeDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Sandor CziborDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Gerben J C ZwezerijnenCancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam.
Ronald BoellaardCancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam.
Josee M ZijlstraAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Hematology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam.
Christine HanounDepartment of Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen. christine.hanoun@uk-essen.de.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate detection of patients at high risk of treatment failure following first-line immunochemotherapy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is of paramount importance as patients might benefit from early treatment escalation. Recently, we introduced the International Metabolic Prognostic Index (IMPI) based on metabolic tumor volume (MTV), age and stage that outperformed the International Prognostic Index. However, radiomic features such as the maximum distance between the largest lesion and another lesion (Dmaxbulk) or the peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak) along with early treatment response at interim positron emission tomography (iPET) based on ΔSUVmax may have additional predictive value. We tested different models for risk prediction aiming to develop a dynamic risk tool. All patients within the PETRA database with newly diagnosed DLBCL treated with R-CHOP, who had available clinical data, baseline PET and iPET scans were included. The optimal transformation of Dmaxbulk, SUVpeak and ΔSUVmax was determined by choosing the best fitting Cox regression model with lowest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), while the cross-validated c-index was obtained as a measure for discrimination. Risk models were developed using clinical, baseline PET and iPET data. The best risk model was compared to the IMPI and our subsequent ClinicalPET model. A total of 1,014 patients were included in the analyses. Best baseline model included age, MTV and Dmaxbulk (AIC 3208.89, c-index 0.70). Adding iPET response further improved outcome prediction (AIC 3140.36, c-index 0.74) with wider segregation of Kaplan-Meier curves and improved rates of correct risk classification, supporting the value of a dynamic risk assessment in DLBCL.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsLymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffusePositron-Emission TomographyPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRadiomicsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCyclophosphamideDoxorubicinFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateCyclophosphamideDoxorubicinPrednisoneR-CHOP protocolRituximabVincristine

Identifiers

PMID40371889
PMCPMC12485354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.