Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25674749›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2015

Effectiveness of the apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting the response to chemoradiation therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Haiting Xie, Tao Sun, Ming Chen, Hao Wang, Xin Zhou, Yunkai Zhang, Huanhong Zeng, Jilian Wang, Wei Fu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. DCE-MRI-Derived Volume Transfer Constant (KTechnology in cancer research & treatment · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

9 authors.

Haiting XieFrom the Department of General Surgery (MX, TS, XZ, YZ, HZ, JW, WF), Peking University Third Hospital; Department of Radiology (MC), Peking University Third Hospital; and Department of Radiation Oncology (HW), Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Tao Sun
Ming Chen
Hao Wang
Xin Zhou
Yunkai Zhang
Huanhong Zeng
Jilian Wang
Wei Fu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The efficacy of the different apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) in predicting different responses to preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is controversial. We did this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different ADCs predicting different responses to CRT in patients with LARC.We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published from January 1, 1990, to June 3, 2014. Pooled estimates were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model for the ADCs before and after CRT (pre- and post-ADC), as well as the change between the pre- and post-ADC (ΔADC). The values of the 3 ADCs for judging different response endpoints, which were defined according to the tumor grading (TRG) system and downstaging of T (tumor) or N (nodal) stages (TN downstaging), were assessed.We included 16 studies with a total of 826 patients. The sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC were 75% (95% CI 57%-87%), 70% (95% CI 50%-84%), 6.81 (95% CI 2.46-18.88), and 0.79 (95% CI 0.75-0.82), respectively, for the pre-ADC in predicting a good response; 76% (95% CI 63%-85%), 87% (95% CI 78%-92%), 20.68 (95% CI 11.76-36.39), and 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.91), respectively, for the post-ADC; and 78% (95% CI 65%-87%), 77% (95% CI 62%-87%), 11.82 (95% CI 4.65-30.04), and 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.87), respectively, for the ΔADC. The post-ADC demonstrated the highest specificity and DOR (P < 0.001), although sensitivity did not differ between the 3 types of ADC (P = 0.380, 0.192, and 0.214). For predicting a pathological complete response (pCR), the post-ADC had the highest specificity (P < 0.001and 0.030) but lowest sensitivity (P < 0.001). The ΔADC had the highest DOR; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.146).The ADC is a reliable and reproducible measure and could serve as a promising noninvasive tool for evaluating the response to CRT in patients with LARC; the post-ADC and ΔADC are particularly promising. The ΔADC had the highest diagnostic performance to predict a pCR compared with the pre-ADC and post-ADC. The value of the ADCs to predict T or N downstaging requires further investigation.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyFemaleForecastingHumansMaleRectal NeoplasmsStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25674749
PMCPMC4602762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.