Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27100991›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Predicts Pathology Complete Response of Rectal Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.

Yuan-Gui Chen, Ming-Qiu Chen, Yu-Yan Guo, Si-Cong Li, Jun-Xin Wu, Ben-Hua Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Yuan-Gui ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, P.R. China.
Ming-Qiu ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, P.R. China.
Yu-Yan GuoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, P.R. China.
Si-Cong LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States of America.
Jun-Xin WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Provincial Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, P.R. China.
Ben-Hua XuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the predictive value of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer.

methodsA total of 265 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma, whole Diffusion-Weighted MRI (DWI-MRI) images, clinically stage II to III (cT3-4 and/or cN+) and treated with NCRT followed by TME were screened. Fifty patients with pCR and another 50 patients without pCR with similar clinical charcacters and treatment regimens were selected for statistical analysis. All the patients' pre-CRT and post-CRT average ADC values were calculated from the coefficient maps created by DWI-MRI and recorded independently. The difference in the ADC values between the pCR and non-pCR was analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. The cut-off ADC value of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with pCR was then established.

resultsThe mean pre- and post-ADC values in all patients, and in pCR patients and non-pCR patients were 0.879±0.06 and 1.383±0.11, 0.859±0.04 and 1.440±0.10, 0.899±0.07 and 1.325±0.09 (×10(-3) mm(2)/s), respectively. The difference between the pre- and post-ADC values in all patients, pCR patients, and non-pCR patients were considered to be statistically significant. The pre-ADC value was significantly lower in the pCR patients than in the non-pCR patients (p = 0.003), whereas the post-ADC values were significantly higher in the pCR patients than in the non-pCR patients. The percentage increase of the ADC value (ΔADC%) in the pCR and non-pCR patients were 68% and 48% respectively (p<0.001). The ROC curves of the cut-off value of the pre-CRT patient ADC value was 0.866×10(-3) mm(2)/s. The AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of diagnosing pCR were 0.670 (95% CI 0.563-0.777), 0.600, 0.640, 60%, 60%, and 60%, respectively. The cut-off value of ΔADC% was 58%. The corresponding AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of diagnosing pCR were 0.856 (95% CI 0.783-0.930), 0.800, 0.760, 76.9%, 79.2%, and 78%, respectively.

conclusionsDWI-MRI technology can be efficient for predicting pCR for LARC after NCRT. Although the mean pre-CRT ADC value and the ΔADC% are moderate predictors for pCR, the latter would be more accurate.

Indexed as

AdultAgedChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyRectal NeoplasmsRemission InductionRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID27100991
PMCPMC4839695

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.