ArticleCancer medicine2025
Prognostic Value of Massiveness Parameters Measured on Baseline FDG PET in Advanced-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prognostic Value of Massiveness Parameters Measured on Baseline FDG PET in Advanced-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma.Cancer medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe prognostic value of radiomic quantitative features measured on pretreatment
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of 176 HL patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2017. A dozen of PET/CT-derived features were extracted via Oncometer3D from baseline
resultsFour different clusters were identified among the 12 PET parameters analyzed: activity, tumor burden, fragmentation-massiveness, and dispersion. On ROC analyses, medEdgeD, a massiveness parameter, had the highest AUC for OS (0.72) and PFS (0.6). Patients with high baseline medEdgeD had a significantly worse PFS (p = 0.04) and OS (p = 0.003) in both Kaplan-Meier and Cox univariate analyses. Furthermore, medEdgeD remained statistically significant in a multivariate analysis (p = 0.008 for OS and p = 0.014 for PFS) including various TEP and clinical parameters used in daily routine. In addition, in sub-group analyses, a significantly worse prognosis was observed for patients with ABVD and with high baseline medEdgeD value (p = 0.0082 for OS and p = 0.001 for PFS). Moreover, in the bulky subgroup, medEdgeD improved prognostic accuracy (p = 0.016).
conclusionPET parameters describing massiveness, in particular medEdgeD, are significantly correlated with prognosis in HL patients for OS and PFS, especially when treated with ABVD.
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.