ReviewClinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain))2014
The application of functional imaging techniques to personalise chemoradiotherapy in upper gastrointestinal malignancies.
Review in Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correlation ofClinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2017Trial
- Gradient-based Volumetric PET Parameters on Immediate Pre-ablation FDG-PET Predict Local Tumor Progression in Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastasis Treated by Microwave Ablation.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Article
- Article
- Different functional lung-sparing strategies and radiotherapy techniques for patients with esophageal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Intratumoral Metabolic Heterogeneity and Other QuantitativeRadiology. Imaging cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Functional imaging gives information about physiological heterogeneity in tumours. The utility of functional imaging tests in providing predictive and prognostic information after chemoradiotherapy for both oesophageal cancer and pancreatic cancer will be reviewed. The benefit of incorporating functional imaging into radiotherapy planning is also evaluated. In cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract, the vast majority of functional imaging studies have used (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET). Few studies in locally advanced pancreatic cancer have investigated the utility of functional imaging in risk-stratifying patients or aiding target volume definition. Certain themes from the oesophageal data emerge, including the need for a multiparametric assessment of functional images and the added value of response assessment rather than relying on single time point measures. The sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET to predict treatment response and survival are not currently high enough to inform treatment decisions. This suggests that a multimodal, multiparametric approach may be required. FDG-PET improves target volume definition in oesophageal cancer by improving the accuracy of tumour length definition and by improving the nodal staging of patients. The ideal functional imaging test would accurately identify patients who are unlikely to achieve a pathological complete response after chemoradiotherapy and would aid the delineation of a biological target volume that could be used for treatment intensification. The current limitations of published studies prevent integrating imaging-derived parameters into decision making on an individual patient basis. These limitations should inform future trial design in oesophageal and pancreatic cancers.
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.