Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29088894›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2017

The value of diffusion kurtosis imaging in assessing pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in rectal cancer: a comparison with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging.

Feixiang Hu, Wei Tang, Yiqun Sun, Dang Wan, Sanjun Cai, Zhen Zhang, Robert Grimm, Xu Yan, Caixia Fu, Tong Tong and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Histogram analysis of multiple diffusion models for predicting advanced non-small cell lung cancer response to chemoimmunotherapy.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

11 authors.

Feixiang HuDepartment of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Wei TangDepartment of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Yiqun SunDepartment of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Dang WanDepartment of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Sanjun CaiDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Zhen ZhangDepartment of Radiotherapy, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Robert GrimmMR Applications Predevelopment, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Xu YanMR Collaboration NE Asia, Siemens Healthcare, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Caixia FuAPPL, Siemens Shenzhen Magnetic Resonance Ltd., Shenzhen, P.R. China.
Tong TongDepartment of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Weijun PengDepartment of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study is to comprehensively evaluate the advantage of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) in distinguishing pathological complete response (pCR) from non-pCR patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in comparison to conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). MATERIAL AND

methodsFifty-six consecutive patients diagnosed with LARC were prospectively enrolled and underwent pre- and post-CRT MRI on a 3.0 T MRI scanner. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), mean diffusion (MD) and mean kurtosis (MK) values of the tumor were measured in pre- and post-CRT phases and then compared to histopathologic findings after total mesorectal excision (TME). Both Mann-Whitney U-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used as statistical methods. Diagnostic performance was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

resultsFor a total of 56 rectal lesions (pCR,

conclusionsBoth DKI and conventional DWI hold great potential in predicting treatment response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in rectal cancer. The DKI parameters, especially MK

Indexed as

apparent diffusion coefficientdiffusion kurtosis imaginglocally advanced rectal cancerneoadjuvant chemoradiation therapypathological complete response

Identifiers

PMID29088894
PMCPMC5650449

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.