↓ Skip to main content

The use of FDG-PET in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL): predicting outcome following first line therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Imaging, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The use of FDG-PET in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL): predicting outcome following first line therapy
Published in
Cancer Imaging, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s40644-014-0034-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monica Coughlan, Rebecca Elstrom

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) using 18fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) has become a standard clinical tool for staging and response assessment in aggressive lymphomas. The use of PET scans in clinical trials is still under exploration, however. In this review, we examine current data regarding PET in DLBCL, and its potential applicability to development of a surrogate endpoint to expedite clinical trial conduct. Interim PET scanning in DLBCL shows mixed results, with qualitative assessment variably associated with outcome. Addition of quantitative assessment might improve predictive power of interim scans. Data from multiple retrospective studies support that PET-defined response at end of treatment correlates with outcome in DLBCL. Optimal technical criteria for standardization of acquisition and criteria for interpretation of scans require further study. Prospective studies to define the correlation of PET-defined response and time-dependent outcomes such as progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), critical for development of PET as a surrogate endpoint for clinical trials, are ongoing. In conclusion, evolving data regarding utility of PET in predictcing outcome of patients with DLBCL show promise to support the use of PET as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials of DLBCL in the future.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 22%
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 61%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 January 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#604
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#315,765
of 369,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. 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 369,658 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.