ArticleOncotarget2017
Evaluation and validation of the diagnostic value of the apparent diffusion coefficient for differentiating early-stage endometrial carcinomas from benign mimickers at 3T MRI.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous researchers obtained various apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) cutoff values to differentiate endometrial carcinoma from benign mimickers with 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Few studies have used 3T MRI or validated the effectiveness of these cutoff ADC values prospectively. This study was designed in two stages to obtain a cutoff ADC value at 3T MRI and to validate prospectively the role of the ADC value. First, we conducted a retrospective study of 60 patients to evaluate the diagnostic value of ADC by obtain a theoretical cutoff ADC value for differentiating between benign and malignant endometrial lesions. Student's t test revealed that ADC values for stage I endometrial carcinomas were significantly lower than those for benign lesions. The area under the curve value of the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.993, and the cutoff ADC value was 0.98 × 10-3 mm2/s. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of diagnosing stage I endometrial carcinoma were 100%, 97.1%, and 98.3%, respectively. Second, we conducted a prospective study of 26 patients to validate the use of the cutoff ADC value obtained in the study's first stage. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy for differentiating malignant from benign endometrial lesions based on the cutoff ADC value obtained earlier were as follows: radiologist 1 attained 86.67%, 100.0%, and 92.31%, respectively; radiologist 2 attained 86.67%, 91.0%, and 88.5%, respectively. Our results suggest that ADC values could be a potential biomarker for use as a quantitative and qualitative tool for differentiating between early-stage endometrial carcinomas and benign mimickers.
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.