ArticlePloS one2014
Establishing magnetic resonance imaging as an accurate and reliable tool to diagnose and monitor esophageal cancer in a rat model.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- High yield reproducible rat model recapitulating human Barrett's carcinogenesis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Animal Models of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma-Past, Present, and Future.Clinical and translational science · 2015Review
- Regenerative Medicine Strategies for Esophageal Repair.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detection of esophageal cancer in the Levrat model of end-to-side esophagojejunostomy.
backgroundThe Levrat model has proven utility in terms of its ability to replicate Barrett's carcinogenesis by inducing gastroduodenoesophageal reflux (GDER). Due to lack of data on the utility of non-invasive methods for detection of esophageal cancer, treatment efficacy studies have been limited, as adenocarcinoma histology has only been validated post-mortem. It would therefore be of great value if the validity and reliability of MRI could be established in this setting.
methodsChronic GDER reflux was induced in 19 male Sprague-Dawley rats using the modified Levrat model. At 40 weeks post-surgery, all animals underwent endoscopy, MRI scanning, and post-mortem histological analysis of the esophagus and anastomosis. With post-mortem histology serving as the gold standard, assessment of presence of esophageal cancer was made by five esophageal specialists and five radiologists on endoscopy and MRI, respectively.
resultsThe accuracy of MRI and endoscopic analysis to correctly identify cancer vs. no cancer was 85.3% and 50.5%, respectively. ROC curves demonstrated that MRI rating had an AUC of 0.966 (p<0.001) and endoscopy rating had an AUC of 0.534 (p = 0.804). The sensitivity and specificity of MRI for identifying cancer vs. no-cancer was 89.1% and 80% respectively, as compared to 45.5% and 57.5% for endoscopy. False positive rates of MRI and endoscopy were 20% and 42.5%, respectively.
conclusionsMRI is a more reliable diagnostic method than endoscopy in the Levrat model. The non-invasiveness of the tool and its potential to volumetrically quantify the size and number of tumors likely makes it even more useful in evaluating novel agents and their efficacy in treatment studies of esophageal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.