ArticleHaematologica2026
Improving the predictive value of end-of-treatment PET/ CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Article in Haematologica, 2026. 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.
- A Critical Review of PET/CT Assessment After CAR-T Cell Therapy in Large B-Cell Lymphoma, Limitations of Current Criteria, Emerging Biomarkers, and a Framework for Standardised Evaluation.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 5-point Deauville score (DS) assesses end-of-treatment (EOT) response on positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients, categorizing scans as 'positive' or 'negative' for complete metabolic response. However, the positive predictive value (PPV) is suboptimal at 60%. We evaluated whether quantitative PET parameters combined with clinical data could improve prediction of treatment failure in EOT PET-positive patients. Baseline and EOT PET/CT scans of 138 patients in DS groups 4-5 were analyzed. Lesions were segmented using a semi-automated adaptive method (SUV4.0 or MV3). PET parameters, including total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV), number of lesions (NOL), tumorSUV/liverSUV-ratio (TLR), the maximum distance between the largest and any other lesion (DmaxBulk), and changes over time, were obtained. Two Cox regression models predicted 2-year progression-free survival. Clinical data were combined with EOT PET in model 1, and baseline, EOT, and delta values in model 2. After internal bootstrapping, models were evaluated for classification using different risk-of-progression cutoffs. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and negative predictive values (NPV) were determined. Using forward selection, model 1 comprised two variables: the NOL and the tumorSUVpeak/liverSUVmean (TLRpeakmean) at EOT (AIC=690.072, c-index=0.747). Model 2 incorporated NOL, TLRpeakmean (EOT) and baseline SUVmean (AIC=687.064, c-index=0.762). The PPV improved to over 85% without compromising the NPV. False positives dropped from 54 (39%, by DS) to 9 (7%) and 6 (4%) for models 1 and 2, respectively. Adding baseline features did not notably impact the models' performance. Our models could support more accurate response-adapted treatment decisions, reducing unnecessary subsequent false positive-directed treatments to just 7%.
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.