Evidence mapPaperPMID 37140669Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2023

Predictive value and accuracy of [

Narjess Ayati, Zahra Jamshidi-Araghi, Magdalena Hoellwerth, Gregor Schweighofer-Zwink, Wolfgang Hitzl, Peter Koelblinger, Christian Pirich, Mohsen Beheshti

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Narjess Ayati *Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Zahra Jamshidi-Araghi *Division of Molecular Imaging and Theranostics, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Muellner Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Magdalena HoellwerthDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Gregor Schweighofer-ZwinkDivision of Molecular Imaging and Theranostics, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Muellner Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Wolfgang HitzlBiostatistics and Publication of Clinical Trial Studies, Research and Innovation Management (RIM), Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Peter KoelblingerDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Christian PirichDivision of Molecular Imaging and Theranostics, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Muellner Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Mohsen BeheshtiDivision of Molecular Imaging and Theranostics, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Muellner Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria. m.beheshti@salk.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3918-3812
Paracelsus Medical University · ATPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used in metastatic melanoma and dramatically alter the treatment of these patients. Given the high cost and potential toxicity, a reliable method for evaluating treatment response is needed. In this study, we assessed tumor response in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ICIs using three modified response criteria: PET Response Evaluation Criteria for Immunotherapy (PERCIMT), PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors for up to Five Lesions (PERCIST5), and immunotherapy-modified PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors for up to Five Lesions (imPERCIST5).

methodsNinety-one patients with non-resectable stage IV metastatic melanoma who received ICIs were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Each patient had two [

resultsThe response and the disease control rates were 40.7% and 71.4%, 41.8% and 50.5%, and 54.9% and 74.7% based on the PERCIMT, PERCIST5, and imPERCIST5 criteria, respectively. PERCIMT and imPERCIST5 showed significantly different disease control rates from that of PERCIST5 (P < 0.001), whereas it was not significant between PERCIMT and imPERCIST5. Overall survival was significantly longer in the metabolic responder groups than in the non-responder groups based on PERCIMT and PERCIST5 criteria (PERCIMT: 2.48 versus 1.47 years, P = 0.003; PERCIST5: 2.57 versus 1.81 years. P = 0.017). However, according to imPERCIST5 criterion, this difference was not observed (P = 0.12).

conclusionAlthough the appearance of new lesions can be secondary to an inflammatory response to ICIs and indicative of pseudoprogression, given the higher rate of true progression, the appearance of new lesions should be interpreted deliberately. Of the three assessed modified criteria, PERCIMT appear to provide more reliable metabolic response assessment that correlates strongly with overall patient survival.

Indexed as

MelanomaMetabolic DiseasesFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansImmunotherapyIpilimumabPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsRetrospective StudiesFluorodeoxyglucose F18IpilimumabRadiopharmaceuticalsImmune checkpoint inhibitorsImmunotherapyimPERCIST5MelanomaPERCIMTPERCIST5

Identifiers

PMID37140669
PMCPMC10317870
OpenAlexW4368358039

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.