Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24114187›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology reports2013

Functional imaging to predict tumor response in locally advanced cervical cancer.

Tara D Barwick, Alexandra Taylor, Andrea Rockall

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. A score combining baseline neutrophilia and primary tumor SUVEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018
    Article
  12. What's New in Imaging for Gynecologic Cancer?Current oncology reports · 2017
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tara D BarwickDepartment of Radiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK, tara.barwick@imperial.nhs.uk.
Alexandra Taylor
Andrea Rockall

Funding

Cancer Research UK 12783
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Worldwide, cervical cancer is the third commonest cancer. Prognostic factors for cervical cancer include tumor size, histological subtype, histological grade, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, nodal status and performance status. However these known parameters are not sufficient to accurately predict treatment response or prognosis. There is a clinical need for noninvasive prognostic biomarkers to provide more detailed tumor characterization at the baseline and/or early during therapy, which may permit personalized treatment and potentially improve outcomes. Functional imaging techniques have been developing rapidly over the past decade. Imaging parameters derived from PET/CT and functional MRI techniques are emerging as promising response biomarkers. This review details the current evidence and future potential of functional imaging to predict tumor response in locally advanced cervical carcinoma.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm StagingPositron-Emission TomographyPrognosisTomography, X-Ray ComputedUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.