| Title |
Poor predictive value of positive interim FDG-PET/CT in primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00259-017-3758-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julien Lazarovici, Marie Terroir, Julia Arfi-Rouche, Jean-Marie Michot, Sacha Mussot, Valentina Florea, Maria-Rosa Ghigna, Peggy Dartigues, Cynthia Petrovanu, Alina Danu, Christophe Fermé, Vincent Ribrag, David Ghez |
| Abstract |
Though commonly used to assess response to therapy, the prognostic value of interim FDG-PET/CT in Primary Mediastinal Large B-cell Lymphoma (PMBCL) is unclear. We conducted a retrospective study on 36 consecutive patients treated at our institution for a PMBCL between 2006 and 2014. All patients with a positive interim FDG-PET/CT had undergone histological restaging consisting either in a surgical debulking of the residual lesion (15 patients) or a CT-guided core needle biopsy (two patients). All FDG-PET/CT were secondarily reviewed according to the more recent Deauville criteria. Interim FDG-PET/CT was considered positive in 17/36 patients using visual evaluation. Among these patients, 14 had a Deauville score of 4. Histological restaging was negative in all but one case, showing inflammation and/or fibrosis. After a median follow-up of 48.5 months, a total of five patients have relapsed, two patients in the positive FDG-PET/CT group, and three patients in the negative FDG-PET/CT group, respectively. These data indicate that a positive interim FDG-PET/CT does not reflect persistence of active disease in the vast majority of PMBCL cases. The relapse rate appears similar regardless of interim FDG-PET/CT results and interpretation criteria. This suggests that interim FDG-PET/CT has a poor positive predictive value, thus kt should be used with caution in PMBCL. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 24% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 24% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 69% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Energy | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2017.
All research outputs
#21,153,429
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#2,610
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,847
of 318,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#29
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,180 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.