Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26390048›Full record

ArticleRadiology2016

Multiparametric Assessment of Treatment Response in High-Grade Soft-Tissue Sarcomas with Anatomic and Functional MR Imaging Sequences.

Theodoros Soldatos, Shivani Ahlawat, Elizabeth Montgomery, Majid Chalian, Michael A Jacobs, Laura M Fayad

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. TThe Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Theodoros SoldatosFrom the Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Victoria Hospital, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, United Kingdom (T.S.); Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (S.A., M.C., M.A.J., L.M.F.), Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center (E.M., M.A.J., L.M.F.), and Department of Pathology (E.M.), Johns Hopkins University Hospital, 601 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287.
Shivani AhlawatFrom the Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Victoria Hospital, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, United Kingdom (T.S.); Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (S.A., M.C., M.A.J., L.M.F.), Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center (E.M., M.A.J., L.M.F.), and Department of Pathology (E.M.), Johns Hopkins University Hospital, 601 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287.
Elizabeth MontgomeryFrom the Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Victoria Hospital, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, United Kingdom (T.S.); Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (S.A., M.C., M.A.J., L.M.F.), Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center (E.M., M.A.J., L.M.F.), and Department of Pathology (E.M.), Johns Hopkins University Hospital, 601 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287.
Majid ChalianFrom the Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Victoria Hospital, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, United Kingdom (T.S.); Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (S.A., M.C., M.A.J., L.M.F.), Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center (E.M., M.A.J., L.M.F.), and Department of Pathology (E.M.), Johns Hopkins University Hospital, 601 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287.
Michael A JacobsFrom the Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Victoria Hospital, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, United Kingdom (T.S.); Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (S.A., M.C., M.A.J., L.M.F.), Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center (E.M., M.A.J., L.M.F.), and Department of Pathology (E.M.), Johns Hopkins University Hospital, 601 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287.
Laura M FayadFrom the Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Victoria Hospital, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, United Kingdom (T.S.); Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (S.A., M.C., M.A.J., L.M.F.), Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center (E.M., M.A.J., L.M.F.), and Department of Pathology (E.M.), Johns Hopkins University Hospital, 601 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287.
Johns Hopkins University · USJohns Hopkins Hospital · USNHS Fife · GB

Funding

Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Rosalie Wollett · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
Multi-Modality Quantitiative Imaging for Evaluation of Response to Cancer TherapyU01CA140204 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DU, YONG, SOLNES, LILJA · 2011 to 2022
$6.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973NCI NIH HHS U01 CA140204
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the added value of quantitative diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging to conventional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for assessment of the response of soft-tissue sarcomas to neoadjuvant therapy. MATERIALS AND

methodsMR imaging examinations in 23 patients with soft-tissue sarcomas who had undergone neoadjuvant therapy were reviewed by two readers during three sessions: conventional imaging (T1-weighted, fluid-sensitive, static postcontrast T1-weighted), conventional with diffusion-weighted imaging, and conventional with diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. For each session, readers recorded imaging features and determined treatment response. Interobserver agreement was assessed and receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to evaluate the accuracy of each session for determining response by using results of the histologic analysis as the reference standard. Good response was defined as less than or equal to 5% residual viable tumor.

resultsOf the 23 sarcomas, four (17.4%) showed good histologic response (three of four with >95% granulation tissue and <5% necrosis, one of four with 95% necrosis and <5% viable tumor) and 19 (82.6%) showed poor response (viable tumor range, 10%-100%). Interobserver agreement was substantial or excellent for imaging features in all sequences (k = 0.789-1.000). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed an increase in diagnostic performance with the addition of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for prediction of response compared with that for conventional imaging alone (areas under the curve, 0.500, 0.676, 0.821 [reader 1] and 0.506, 0.704, 0.833 [reader 2], respectively).

conclusionAdding functional sequences to the conventional MR imaging protocol increases the sensitivity of MR imaging for determining treatment response in soft-tissue sarcomas.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolContrast MediaDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleGadolinium DTPAHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedInfantMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedContrast MediaGadolinium DTPA

Identifiers

PMID26390048
PMCPMC4770945
OpenAlexW1874456670

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.