Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28055248›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2017

Functional MRI for quantitative treatment response prediction in locally advanced rectal cancer.

Trang T Pham, Gary P Liney, Karen Wong, Michael B Barton

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Trang T Pham1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7759-8296
Gary P Liney1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Karen Wong1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Michael B Barton1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Liverpool Hospital · AUUniversity of Wollongong · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite advances in multimodality treatment strategies for locally advanced rectal cancer and improvements in locoregional control, there is still a considerable variation in response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Accurate prediction of response to neoadjuvant CRT would enable early stratification of management according to good responders and poor responders, in order to adapt treatment to improve therapeutic outcomes in rectal cancer. Clinical studies in diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI have shown promising results for the prediction of therapeutic response in rectal cancer. DWI allows for assessment of tumour cellularity. DCE-MRI enables evaluation of factors of the tumour microvascular environment and changes in perfusion in response to treatment. Studies have demonstrated that predictors of good response to CRT include lower tumour pre-CRT apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), greater percentage increase in ADC during and post CRT, and higher pre-CRT K

Indexed as

Chemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeoadjuvant TherapyRectal NeoplasmsRectumTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28055248
PMCPMC5605058
OpenAlexW2571101327

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.