ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Assessment of response to anti-angiogenic targeted therapy in pulmonary metastatic renal cell carcinoma: R2* value as a predictive biomarker.
Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Evaluating the Treatment Efficacy of Nano-Drug in a Lung Cancer Model Using Advanced Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- The value of blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) imaging in evaluating post-operative renal function outcomes after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.European radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the utility of MR R2*-mapping and the optimal time-point for assessing the response of pulmonary metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) to anti-angiogenic targeted therapy (aATT). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe exploration-sample group and the validation-sample group consisted of 22 and 16 patients. The parameters of MR R2*-mapping, including the R2* value at each time-point (R2*
resultsThe inter-, intra-observer agreements and inter-scan consistency were excellent (p > 0.80). For the exploration-sample group, the areas under the curve for the parameters of MR R2* mapping were 0.55, 0.60, 0.83, 0.64, 0.88 and 0.83 for R2*
conclusionAssessing aATT outcome based on changes in the R2* value between baseline and second treatment is more accurate than assessment at other time-points and assessment based on the RECIST. KEY POINTS: • The inter-scan consistency of R2*-mapping in pulmonary mRCC are excellent. • The intra-/inter-observer agreement of R2* mapping in pulmonary mRCC are excellent. • Using changes in R2* value between baseline/after second-treatment is better than RECIST. • The choice of baseline/after second treatment is better than other time-points.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.