ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2026
Comparison of metabolic variables in FDG PET/CT in rectal cancer patients who achieved a complete or incomplete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate qualitative and quantitative metabolic parameters on 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography [FDG PET/CT] for differentiating complete from incomplete response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 74 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent FDG PET/CT before and after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Patients were classified as good responders [complete clinical response, n = 34] or poor responders [n = 40]. Visual response was assessed using a five-point visual response score. Quantitative parameters included SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis, using a fixed 41% threshold and best visual fit segmentation. Group comparisons, receiver operating characteristic analysis, and logistic regression were performed.
resultsVRS grade 4 [no uptake post-treatment] demonstrated high specificity [95%] and positive predictive value [90.9%] for identifying good responders, with a sensitivity of 58.8%. Two false positives were observed [carcinoma in situ and mucinous tumor]. Significant quantitative differentiators included post-treatment SUVmax41% [p < 0.0001], SUVmaxBVF [p < 0.0001], SUVmean41% [p < 0.0001], SUVmeanBVF [p < 0.0001], post-treatment TLGBVF [p = 0.0164], ΔSUVmax [p = 0.0306], and ΔSUVmean41% [p = 0.0072]. Post-treatment SUVmax showed the highest accuracy, with an area under the curve [AUC] of 0.917.
conclusionsThe present study suggests that FDG-PET/CT provides valuable complementary information for response assessment after nCRT in rectal cancer and may assist multidisciplinary decision-making regarding organ-preserving strategies. Absence of residual uptake on post-treatment imaging and post-treatment SUVmax demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for identifying complete responders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42799857What 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.