Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 254

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography for Interim Response Assessment of Advanced-Stage Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review

Terasawa, Teruhiko, Lau, Joseph, Bardet, Stéphane, Couturier, Olivier, Hotta, Tomomitsu, Hutchings, Martin, Nihashi, Takashi, Nagai, Hirokazu·2009·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically review the prognostic accuracy of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for interim response assessment of patients with untreated advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Biologic Abstracts were searched for relevant studies. Two assessors independently reviewed studies for inclusion and extracted data. Relevant unpublished data were requested from the investigators if unavailable from publications. A meta-analysis of the prognostic accuracy was performed. Results: Thirteen studies involving 360 advanced-stage HL patients and 311 DLBCL patients met our inclusion criteria. Advanced-stage HL studies included few unfavorable-risk patients. DLBCL studies were heterogeneous. FDG-PET had an overall sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.89) and a specificity of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94 to 0.99) for advanced-stage HL, and a sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.87) and a specificity of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.93) for DLBCL. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses did not identify factors that affect prognostic accuracy. Conclusion: For low- to intermediate-risk advanced-stage HL, FDG-PET performed after a few cycles of standard chemotherapy seems to be a reliable prognostic test to identify poor responders, warranting prospective studies to assess PET-based treatment strategies. For DLBCL, no reliable conclusions can be drawn due to heterogeneity. Interim PET remains an unproven test for routine clinical practice. Its use should be reserved for research settings where treatment regimens and imaging conditions are standardized.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2008.16.0861

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 254

Metadata

Authors
Terasawa, T., Lau, J., Bardet, S., Couturier, O., Hotta, T., Hutchings, M., Nihashi, T., & Nagai, H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2009-04-10
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
1906-1914
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2148788579
Cited by
254
References
3
FWCI
3.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography for Interim Response Assessment of Advanced-Stage Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2008.16.0861
The paper
Terasawa, T., Lau, J., Bardet, S., Couturier, O., Hotta, T., Hutchings, M., Nihashi, T., & Nagai, H. (2009). Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography for Interim Response Assessment of Advanced-Stage Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.16.0861

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.