ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2019
Application of magnetic resonance diffusion kurtosis imaging for distinguishing histopathologic subtypes and grades of rectal carcinoma.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging for T restaging and predicting complete response of locally advanced rectal cancer following neoadjuvant immunotherapy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Non-invasive identification of KRAS mutation in rectal cancer using hybrid intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion kurtosis model.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Application of cellular microstructural diffusion MRI (cell size imaging) in rectal lesions: a preliminary study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Deep Learning for Medical Image-Based Cancer Diagnosis.Cancers · 2023Review
- Diffusion kurtosis imaging and MRI-detected extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer: correlation with clinicopathological prognostic factors.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Native T1 mapping for differentiating the histopathologic type, grade, and stage of rectal adenocarcinoma: a pilot study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022Article
- Lymph Nodes Evaluation in Rectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand and Future Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Application of diffusion kurtosis tensor MR imaging in characterization of renal cell carcinomas with different pathological types and grades.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2021Article
- Amide Proton Transfer Weighted and Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Imaging in Evaluation of Prognostic Factors for Rectal Adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- T stage prediction of colorectal tumor based on multiparametric functional images.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
- Evaluation of diffusion kurtosis and diffusivity from baseline staging MRI as predictive biomarkers for response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) for distinguishing different histopathological subtypes and grades of rectal carcinoma and to compare DKI with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI).
methodsThis prospective study involved 132 patients with rectal carcinoma, comprising 116 with adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified (AC) and 16 with mucinous carcinoma (MC). High spatial resolution magnetic resonance (MR) and DKI sequences (b values of 0, 600, 1000, 1500 and 2000 s/mm
resultsThe MD and ADC values were significantly higher for MC than for AC (1.94 ± 0.51 vs. 1.33 ± 0.02 and 1.26 ± 0.64 vs. 0.92 ± 0.01, respectively; P < 0.001). The MK values were significantly lower for MC than for AC (0.66 ± 0.02 vs. 0.93 ± 0.09, P < 0.001). The MK and MD values demonstrated higher sensitivity (94%, both) and specificity (96, 93%, respectively) than the ADC values. However, all the parameters derived from both DKI and DWI showed no significant differences between different histological grades.
conclusionsDKI is a more valuable imaging biomarker than conventional DWI for differentiating MC from AC. However, it is still debatable whether DKI is useful for distinguishing different histological grades.
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.