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
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 Relevant unpublished data were requested from the investigators if unavailable from publications.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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Murray, T., Xu, J., & Thun, M. J. (2007) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.57.1.43 · Cited by 7,439
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Spaepen, K., Stroobants, S., Dupont, P., Vandenberghe, P., Thomas, J., de Groot, T., Balzarini, J., De Wolf-Peeters, C., Mortelmans, L., & Verhoef, G. (2002) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdf256 · Cited by 410
Cited by
Aldinucci, D., Gloghini, A., Pinto, A., De Filippi, R., & Carbone, A. (2010) · The Journal of Pathology · doi:10.1002/path.2711 · Cited by 275
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.