Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26029642›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2015

Diffusion MRI on lymph node staging of gastric adenocarcinoma.

Mustafa Hasbahceci, Adem Akcakaya, Naim Memmi, Ihsan Turkmen, Gokhan Cipe, Pelin Yildiz, Dilek Sema Arici, Mahmut Muslumanoglu

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The role of MRI in the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2020
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Comparison of DWI andOncotarget · 2017
    Article
  12. Preoperative staging of nodal status in gastric cancer.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2017
    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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mustafa Hasbahceci1 Department of General Surgery, 2 Department of Radiology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey ; 3 Department of General Surgery, Fatih University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34500, Turkey ; 4 Department of Pathology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey.
Adem Akcakaya1 Department of General Surgery, 2 Department of Radiology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey ; 3 Department of General Surgery, Fatih University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34500, Turkey ; 4 Department of Pathology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey.
Naim Memmi1 Department of General Surgery, 2 Department of Radiology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey ; 3 Department of General Surgery, Fatih University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34500, Turkey ; 4 Department of Pathology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey.
Ihsan Turkmen1 Department of General Surgery, 2 Department of Radiology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey ; 3 Department of General Surgery, Fatih University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34500, Turkey ; 4 Department of Pathology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey.
Gokhan Cipe1 Department of General Surgery, 2 Department of Radiology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey ; 3 Department of General Surgery, Fatih University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34500, Turkey ; 4 Department of Pathology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey.
Pelin Yildiz1 Department of General Surgery, 2 Department of Radiology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey ; 3 Department of General Surgery, Fatih University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34500, Turkey ; 4 Department of Pathology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey.
Dilek Sema Arici1 Department of General Surgery, 2 Department of Radiology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey ; 3 Department of General Surgery, Fatih University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34500, Turkey ; 4 Department of Pathology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey.
Mahmut Muslumanoglu1 Department of General Surgery, 2 Department of Radiology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey ; 3 Department of General Surgery, Fatih University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34500, Turkey ; 4 Department of Pathology, Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih, Istanbul 34093, Turkey.
Bezmiâlem Vakıf Üniversitesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in preoperative assessment of metastatic lymph nodes of gastric cancer.

methodsA total of 23 gastric cancer patients with a mean age of 59.4±10.9 years were analyzed. Lymph nodes were grouped as perigastric lesser curvature (Group Ia), perigastric greater curvature (Group Ib), D1+/D2 lymph nodes (Group II). Identification of histologically metastatic lymph nodes by diffusion weighted MRI was regarded as the main outcome.

resultsA total of 1,056 lymph nodes including 180 histologically proven metastatic lymph nodes were dissected. Although diffusion weighted MRI could identify the metastatic lymph nodes in 18 out of 23 patients (77.8%), only 69 of total 1,056 nodes (6.53%), either metastatic or non-metastatic, could be detected. There was no correlation between histopathology and diffusion weighted MRI with regard to lymph node groups (P>0.05 for all). Overall accuracy was calculated as 69.56, 65.21 and 52.17 for Groups II, Ib and Ia lymph nodes, respectively. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values could not be helpful to differentiate metastatic lymph nodes (P=0.673).

conclusionsDiffusion weighted MRI has low accuracy to detect or to differentiate metastatic and non-metastatic lymph nodes based on their ADC values in gastric cancer.

Indexed as

apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)diffusion weighted imagingGastric cancerlymph nodesmagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

Identifiers

PMID26029642
PMCPMC4426126
OpenAlexW1956745049

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.