Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29943182›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2019

Evaluation of T2-W MR imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging for the early post-treatment local response assessment of patients treated conservatively for cervical cancer: a multicentre study.

Maarten G Thomeer, Vincent Vandecaveye, Loes Braun, Frenchey Mayer, Martine Franckena-Schouten, Peter de Boer, Jaap Stoker, Erik Van Limbergen, Marrije Buist, Ignace Vergote and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Maarten G ThomeerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.thomeer@erasmusmc.nl.
Vincent VandecaveyeDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Loes BraunDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Frenchey MayerDepartment of Gynecology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Martine Franckena-SchoutenDepartment of Radiotherapy, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter de BoerDepartment of Radiotherapy, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jaap StokerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Erik Van LimbergenDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Marrije BuistDepartment of Gynecology Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ignace VergoteDepartment of Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Myriam HuninkDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Helena van DoornDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Erasmus MC · NLKU Leuven · BEUniversity of Amsterdam · NLAcademic Medical Center · NL

Funding

Nuts-Ohra 1002-043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare MR imaging with or without DWI and clinical response evaluation (CRE) in the local control evaluation of cervical carcinoma after radiotherapy.

methodsIn a multicentre university setting, we prospectively included 107 patients with primary cervical cancer treated with radiotherapy. Sensitivity and specificity for CRE and MR imaging (with pre-therapy MR imaging as reference) (2 readers) were evaluated using cautious and strict criteria for identifying residual tumour. Nested logistic regression models were constructed for CRE, subsequently adding MR imaging with and without DWI as independent variables, as well as the pre- to post-treatment change in apparent diffusion coefficient (delta ADC).

resultsUsing cautious criteria, CRE and MR imaging with DWI (reader 1/reader 2) have comparable high specificity (83% and 89%/95%, respectively), whereas MR imaging without DWI showed significantly lower specificity (63%/53%) than CRE. Using strict criteria, CRE and MR imaging with DWI both showed very high specificity (99% and 92%/95%, respectively), whereas MR imaging without DWI showed significantly lower specificity (89%/77%) than CRE. All sensitivities were not significantly different. Addition of MR imaging with DWI to CRE has statistically significant incremental value in identifying residual tumour (reader 1: estimate, 1.06; p = 0.001) (reader 2: estimate, 0.62; p = 0.02). Adding the delta ADC did not have significant incremental value in detecting residual tumour.

conclusionsDWI significantly increases the specificity of MR imaging in the detection of local residual tumour. Furthermore, MR imaging with DWI has significant incremental diagnostic value over CRE, whereas adding the delta ADC has no incremental diagnostic value. KEY POINTS: • If MR imaging is used for response evaluation, DWI should be incorporated • MR imaging with DWI has diagnostic value comparable/complementary to clinical response evaluation • Inter-reader agreement is moderate to fair for two experienced radiologist readers • Quantitative measurements of ADC early post-therapy have limited diagnostic value.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overConservative TreatmentDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTime FactorsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsComparative studyDiffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imagingRadiationUterine cervical neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID29943182
PMCPMC6291430
OpenAlexW2810244281

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.