ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
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.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has fundamentally altered the management of relapsed or refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL). Despite remarkable clinical efficacy, the radiologic evaluation of therapeutic response remains highly problematic. Standard assessment frameworks, notably the Lugano classification and the Deauville Five-Point Scale (D5PS), were calibrated for cytotoxic chemoimmunotherapy and demonstrate profound inadequacies when applied to the unique biological kinetics of cellular immunotherapy. This review critically examines the limitations of standard
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.