[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-190923-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":75,"doc-detail-190923-en":121},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":68,"head_meta":70,"extra_data":72,"updated_unix":74},105,"en","lyma-pet-population-and-pet-imaging-biomarkers-supplementary-analysis","LYMA-PET population and PET imaging biomarkers - Supplementary analysis","","Supplementary results summarize patient populations by age, sex, and treatment arm, comparing LYMA-PET cohorts (N=104 and N=299) with a test group. Baseline staging, LDH availability, and MIPI category distribution are reported alongside rtices of observation rituximab use. PET-derived parameters include SUVmax, SUVpeak, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis with descriptive statistics. Survival associations are evaluated using hazard ratios and confidence limits across SUVmax and MIPI score strata.",{"@graph":14,"@context":67},[15,34,50],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/presentations/","Presentations",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/lyma-pet-population-and-pet-imaging-biomarkers-supplementary-analysis/190923/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"author":36,"headline":10,"publisher":39,"fileFormat":42,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":43,"datePublished":44,"encodingFormat":42,"isAccessibleForFree":45,"interactionStatistic":46},"DigitalDocument",{"name":37,"@type":38},"Lucas Vance","Person",{"url":19,"name":40,"@type":41},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-11","2026-09-03",true,{"@type":47,"interactionType":48,"userInteractionCount":26},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":49},"ViewAction",{"@type":51,"mainEntity":52},"FAQPage",[53,59,63],{"name":54,"@type":55,"acceptedAnswer":56},"What PET parameters are reported in the supplementary analysis?","Question",{"text":57,"@type":58},"The document reports SUVmax, SUVpeak, metabolic tumor volume (cm3), and total lesion glycolysis (cm3), each with mean/median and range or quartiles depending on the section.","Answer",{"name":60,"@type":55,"acceptedAnswer":61},"How is risk evaluated in relation to imaging metrics and MIPI score?",{"text":62,"@type":58},"Associations are assessed using hazard ratios with 95% confidence limits and corresponding Pr>ChiSq p-values for parameters such as SUVmax and MIPI score categories.",{"name":64,"@type":55,"acceptedAnswer":65},"What comparison is made between “Before transplantation” and “End of Treatment”?",{"text":66,"@type":58},"The document provides median and range for SUVmax and SUVpeak, percentage changes in SUVmax (ΔSUVmax) and SUVpeak (ΔSUVpeak), and Deauville scores at both time points.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":69,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":40,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":71,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":73,"site_id":7},190923,1788405591,{"code":4,"msg":76,"data":77},"success",[78,82,87,92,97,102,107,112,117],{"id":79,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":80,"slug":81},11,90,"presentations",{"id":83,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":88,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":93,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":94,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":96},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":98,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":99,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":101},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":103,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":104,"show_sort_weight":105,"slug":106},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":108,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":109,"show_sort_weight":110,"slug":111},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":113,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":114,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":120},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":76,"data":122},{"doc_id":73,"user_id":123,"nickname":37,"user_avatar":124,"doc_module":22,"category_id":79,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":125,"file_id":126,"file_url":127,"file_type":128,"file_size":129,"view_count":22,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":130,"language":131,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":132,"faqs":133,"seo_title":134,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":74,"read_time":30},549768064622,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","|  | LYMA-PET\u003Cbr>population\u003Cbr>N=104 | LYMA\u003Cbr>population\u003Cbr>N=299 | Test |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| \u003Cbr>Age at inclusion (years)\u003Cbr>n Missing Median\u003Cbr>Min ; Max | 104\u003Cbr>0\u003Cbr>57.0\u003Cbr>41.0 ; 65.0 | 299\u003Cbr>0\u003Cbr>57.0\u003Cbr>27.0 ; 65.0 | Wilcoxon\u003Cbr>P = 0.523 |\n| \u003Cbr>Sexe\u003Cbr>Male / Female\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>Arm (randomized patients) | 78 /26\u003Cbr>(75.% / 25%) | 236/63\u003Cbr>(79%/21%) | Fisher Exact P = 0.236\u003Cbr>Fisher Exact |\n| OBSERVATION RITUXIMAB | 44 (47.8%)\u003Cbr>48 (52.2%) | 120 (50.0%)\u003Cbr>120 (50.0%) | P = 0.691 |\n| \u003Cbr>LDH\u003Cbr>N\u003Cbr>> N Not done | 61 (58.7%)\u003Cbr>40 (38.4%)\u003Cbr>3 (2.9%) | 184 (61.5%)\u003Cbr>108 (36.2%)\u003Cbr>7 (2.3%) | Fisher Exact\u003Cbr>P = 0.943 |\n| \u003Cbr>Ann Arbor Staging\u003Cbr>Missing 2 | 0\u003Cbr>4 (3.8%) | 1\u003Cbr>18 (6.0%) | Fisher Exact\u003Cbr>P = 0.089 |\n| 3\u003Cbr>4 | 16 (15.4%)\u003Cbr>84 (80.8%) | 31 (10.4%) |  |\n|  |  | 249 (83.6%) |  |\n| \u003Cbr>MIPI\u003Cbr>Low Int High | 55 (52.9%)\u003Cbr>32 (30.8%)\u003Cbr>17 (16.3%) | 159 (53.2%)\u003Cbr>82 (27.4%)\u003Cbr>58 (19.4%) | Fisher Exact\u003Cbr>P = 0.507 |\n\n| N=103 |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| SUVmax |  |\n| Mean (SD)\u003Cbr>Median Q1 ; Q3 Min ; Max | 8.7 (5.0)\u003Cbr>7.39\u003Cbr>5.27 ; 11.64\u003Cbr>1.82 ; 33.85 |\n| SUVpeak |  |\n| Mean (SD)\u003Cbr>Median Q1 ; Q3 Min ; Max | 4.81 (2.59)\u003Cbr>4.18\u003Cbr>2.84 ; 6.74\u003Cbr>0 ; 13.96 |\n| Metabolic Tumor Volume (cm3) |  |\n| Mean (SD)\u003Cbr>Median Q1 ; Q3 Min ; Max | 192.8655 (435.536)\u003Cbr>24.39 9.712 ; 124.890\u003Cbr>0.870 ; 2482.570 |\n| Total Lesion Glycolysis (cm3) |  |\n| Mean (SD)\u003Cbr>Median Q1 ; Q3 Min ; Max | 820.5 (1667.83)\u003Cbr>105.18\u003Cbr>32.93 ; 535.40\u003Cbr>0 ; 9384.41 |\n\n\n| Parameter | Modality tested | Hazard Ratio | 95% Hazard Ratio Confidence Limits |  | Pr>ChiSq |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  | Lower | Upper |  |\n| SUVmax | >10.3 | 5.415 | 2.489 | 11.779 | \u003C.0001 |\n| MIPI SCORE | High | 2.137 | 0.808 | 5.652 | 0.1257 |\n|  | Int | 2.562 | 1.133 | 5.796 | 0.0239 |\n| D arm | Non-randomized | 17.454 | 6.539 | 46.588 | \u003C.0001 |\n|  | RITUXIMAB | 0.358 | 0.134 | 0.952 | 0.0395 |\n\n\n| Parameter | Modality tested | Hazard Ratio | 95% Hazard Ratio Confidence Limits |  | Pr>ChiSq |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  | Lower | Upper |  |\n| SUVmax | >10.3 | 6.318 | 2.584 | 15.445 | \u003C.0001 |\n| MIPI SCORE | High | 4.966 | 1.548 | 15.934 | 0.0071 |\n|  | Int | 3.134 | 1.172 | 8.375 | 0.0228 |\n| D arm | Non-randomized | 10.507 | 3.784 | 29.178 | \u003C.0001 |\n|  | RITUXIMAB | 0.900 | 0.304 | 2.669 | 0.8499 |\n\n\n|  | Before\u003Cbr>transplantation\u003Cbr>N=64 | End of Treatment\u003Cbr>N=44 |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| SUVmax |  |  |\n| Median | 1.9 | 1.9 |\n| Range | [ 0.5-16] | [0.5-24.1] |\n| ΔSUVmax |  |  |\n| Median | -68% | -76 % |\n| Range | [-100% - +271%] | [-100% - +17%] |\n| SUVpeak |  |  |\n| Median | 1.4 | 1.4 |\n| Range | [0.3-20.3] | [0.4-17.2] |\n| ΔSUVpeak |  |  |\n| Median | 69% | -78% |\n| Range | [-95% - +278%] | [-96% - + 13%] |\n| Deauville Score |  |  |\n| 1 | 19 (29.6%) | 23 (52.3%) |\n| 2 | 23 (35.9%) | 12 (27.3%) |\n| 3 | 8 (12.5%) | 6 (16.6%) |\n| 4 | 6 (9.3%) | 1 (2.3%) |\n| 5 | 8 (12.5%) | 2 (4.5%) |\n\n\n|  |  | Metrics | Modality | P-value | Hazard Ratio | 95% Hazard Ratio Confidence |  |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  | Lower | Upper |\n| Before Transplantation\u003Cbr>(n=64) | PFS | SUVmaxiPET | >6,3 | 0.0977 | 3.627 | 0.789 | 16.667 |\n|  | OS | SUVmaxiPET | >6,3 | 0.0199 | 6.927 | 1.357 | 35.351 |\n|  | PFS | ΔSUVmaxiPET | >-29.65% | 0.2976 | - | - | - |\n|  | OS | ΔSUVmaxiPET | >-29.65% | 0.1089 | - | - | - |\n| End of Treatment\u003Cbr>(n=41) | PFS | SUVmaxeotPET | >1,18 | 0.3879 | - | - | - |\n|  | OS | SUVmaxeotPET | >1,18 | 0.0708 | 0.228 | 0.046 | 1.134 |\n|  | PFS | ΔSUVmaxeotPET | >-90.88% | 0.0209 | 0.196 | 0.049 | 0.781 |\n|  | OS | ΔSUVmaxeotPET | >-90.88% | 0.1836 | - | - | - |","cbCaidd0QoIMxZFB","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidd0QoIMxZFB","pdf",562398,7,"English","# Population characteristics and staging\n## Age and sex distribution\n## LDH and Ann Arbor staging\n## MIPI categories and rituximab observation\n# PET imaging parameter summary\n## SUVmax, SUVpeak\n## Metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis\n# Survival association analysis\n## Hazard ratios for SUVmax and MIPI score\n## Before transplantation vs end of treatment comparisons","[{\"question\":\"What PET parameters are reported in the supplementary analysis?\",\"answer\":\"The document reports SUVmax, SUVpeak, metabolic tumor volume (cm3), and total lesion glycolysis (cm3), each with mean/median and range or quartiles depending on the section.\"},{\"question\":\"How is risk evaluated in relation to imaging metrics and MIPI score?\",\"answer\":\"Associations are assessed using hazard ratios with 95% confidence limits and corresponding Pr\\u003eChiSq p-values for parameters such as SUVmax and MIPI score categories.\"},{\"question\":\"What comparison is made between “Before transplantation” and “End of Treatment”?\",\"answer\":\"The document provides median and range for SUVmax and SUVpeak, percentage changes in SUVmax (ΔSUVmax) and SUVpeak (ΔSUVpeak), and Deauville scores at both time points.\"}]","LYMA-PET population and PET imaging biomarkers - Supplementary analysis | PDF"]