SD-Standard Deviation
M-Male
F-Female
Late response assessment
While analysing the outcomes at the second interim assessment, we found that those who underwent PET-CT, satisfactory response (CR) was found in 64% patients whereas those who underwent CECT, satisfactory response (CR + VGPR- 38.18% + 23.64%) was found in 61.82% patients. Therefore, there was not much difference in the treatment recommendations (alternate chemotherapy) based on the modality of scan at second interim assessment.
Survival based on imaging modality
The 5 year OS of both groups- ERA based on CECT (91.8%) vs PET-CT (94.1%) was comparable (p value=0.391) and so was the 5 year EFS (86.7 vs 85.5%, p value=0.724).
EFS and OS for early-stage disease patients who underwent CECT vs PET-CT at ERA were similar (EFS-96.8 vs 92.4%, p value=0.288, OS-98.4 vs 97%, p value=0.563). Similarly, there was also no significant difference in the EFS and OS for advanced stage children who underwent CECT vs PET-CT at ERA (EFS-82.1 vs 81.7%, p value=0.926, OS-88.8 vs 92.5%, p value=0.316). Even the survival outcomes for bulky and non-bulky disease based on imaging modality did not differ statistically (EFS of bulky disease- CECT vs PET-CT-83.2 vs 84.7%, p value=0.77; OS of bulky disease- CECT vs PET-CT-90.7 vs 94.4%, p value=0.355. EFS of non- bulky disease; CECT vs PET-CT-91 vs 86%, p value=0.268, OS of non-bulky disease, CECT vs PET-CT-93.3 vs 93.9%, p value=0.869)