Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30280246›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2019

Gastric cancer and imaging biomarkers: Part 1 - a critical review of DW-MRI and CE-MDCT findings.

Francesco Giganti, Lei Tang, Hideo Baba

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04028375 (Clinical Study of CT and MR in Staging and Prediction of Response in Patients With Gastric Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT04028375 unknown statusnot on this map

Clinical Study of CT and MR in Staging and Prediction of Response in Patients With Gastric Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorHenan Cancer HospitalRan2019 to 2023Enrolled400ConditionsGastric Cancer Stage, CT, MRI, Neoadjuvant TherapyArmsNo intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. The Prognostic Significance of Preoperative StagingMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

3 authors.

Francesco GigantiDepartment of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. f.giganti@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5218-6431
Lei TangDepartment of Radiology, Peking University Cancer Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hideo BabaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current standard of care for gastric cancer imaging includes heterogeneity in image acquisition techniques and qualitative image interpretation. In addition to qualitative assessment, several imaging techniques, including diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI), contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography (CE-MDCT), dynamic-contrast enhanced MRI and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, can allow quantitative analysis. However, so far there is no consensus regarding the application of functional imaging in the management of gastric cancer. The aim of this article is to specifically review two promising biomarkers for gastric cancer with reasonable spatial resolution: the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from DW-MRI and textural features from CE-MDCT. We searched MEDLINE/ PubMed for manuscripts published from inception to 6 February 2018. Initially, we searched for (gastric cancer OR gastric tumour) AND diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Then, we searched for (gastric cancer OR gastric tumour) AND texture analysis AND computed tomography. We collated the results from the studies related to this query. There is evidence that: (1) the ADC is a promising biomarker for the evaluation of the aggressiveness (T and N stage), treatment response and prognosis of gastric cancer; (2) textural features are related to the degree of differentiation, Lauren classification, treatment response and prognosis of gastric cancer. We conclude that these imaging biomarkers hold promise as effective additional tools in the diagnostic pathway of gastric cancer and may facilitate the multidisciplinary work between the radiologist and clinician, and across different institutions, to provide a greater biological understanding of gastric cancer. KEY POINTS: • Quantitative imaging is the extraction of quantifiable features from medical images for the assessment of normal or pathological conditions and represents a promising area for gastric cancer. • Quantitative analysis from CE-MDCT and DW-MRI allows the extrapolation of multiple imaging biomarkers. • ADC from DW-MRI and CE- MDCT-based texture features are non-invasive, quantitative imaging biomarkers that hold promise in the evaluation of the aggressiveness, treatment response and prognosis of gastric cancer.

Indexed as

BiomarkersDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansPositron-Emission TomographyStomach NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment OutcomeBiomarkersBiomarkersGastric cancerMagnetic resonance imagingTomography

Identifiers

PMID30280246
PMCPMC6420485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.