Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 494

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome

Open access
Haioun, Corinne, Itti, Emmanuel, Rahmouni, Alain, Brice, Pauline, Rain, Jean-Didier, Belhadj, Karim, Gaulard, Philippe, Garderet, Laurent, Lepage, Eric, Reyes, Felix, Meignan, Michel·2005·Blood
DOI 10.1182/blood-2005-01-0272
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Assessment of early therapeutic response using metabolic imaging is potentially useful to determine prognosis in aggressive lymphoma. Between January 2000 and January 2004, 90 patients with newly diagnosed aggressive lymphoma (median age 53 years, 94% diffuse large B-cell) were prospectively explored with [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) prior to induction chemotherapy, after 2 cycles (“early PET”), and after induction completion. Therapeutic response was evaluated using conventional diagnostic methods at 4 cycles. Induction treatment with an anthracycline-containing regimen was administered to all patients, associated with rituximab in 41%. According to the International Prognostic Index (IPI), 37 patients and 53 patients belonged to the lower- and higher-risk groups, respectively. At midinduction, “early PET” was considered negative in 54 patients and positive in 36. After completion of induction, 83% of PET-negative patients achieved complete remission compared with only 58% of PET-positive patients. Outcome differed significantly between PET-negative and PET-positive groups; the 2-year estimates of event-free survival reached 82% and 43%, respectively (P < .001), and the 2-year estimates of overall survival reached 90% and 61%, respectively (P = .006). Predictive value of “early PET” was observed in both the lower-risk and higher-risk groups, indicating prognostic independence from the IPI. Therefore, FDG-PET should be an early guide to first-line strategies in aggressive lymphoma. (Blood. 2005;106:1376-1381)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1182/blood-2005-01-0272

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 494

Metadata

Authors
Haioun, C., Itti, E., Rahmouni, A., Brice, P., Rain, J.-D., Belhadj, K., Gaulard, P., Garderet, L., Lepage, E., Reyes, F., & Meignan, M.
Venue
Blood
Publisher
American Society of Hematology
Published
2005-08-15
Volume
106
Issue
4
Pages
1376-1381
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
DOI
10.1182/blood-2005-01-0272
OpenAlex
W2135432883
Cited by
494
References
20
FWCI
26.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2005-01-0272
The paper
Haioun, C., Itti, E., Rahmouni, A., Brice, P., Rain, J.-D., Belhadj, K., Gaulard, P., Garderet, L., Lepage, E., Reyes, F., & Meignan, M. (2005). [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2005-01-0272

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.