Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31229791›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2019

Impact of PET/CT for Restaging Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation.

Eric Sorenson, Fernando Lambreton, Jian Q Yu, Tianyu Li, Crystal S Denlinger, Joshua E Meyer, Elin R Sigurdson, Jeffrey M Farma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Complete response after neoadjuvant therapy: how certain is radiology?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2022
    Review
  6. T2-weighted, apparent diffusion coefficient andTechniques in coloproctology · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

8 authors.

Eric SorensonDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Fernando LambretonDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Jian Q YuDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Tianyu LiBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Facility, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Crystal S DenlingerDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Joshua E MeyerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Elin R SigurdsonDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Jeffrey M FarmaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah. Electronic address: Jeffrey.Farma@fccc.edu.

Funding

WORD PROCESSING CENTER--COREP30CA006927 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI Margaret von Mehren · 1985 to 2026
$138.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA major challenge in identifying candidates for nonoperative management of locally advanced rectal cancer is predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) following chemoradiation. We evaluated pre- and post-CRT PET-CT imaging to predict pCR and prognosis in this set of patients undergoing resection after neoadjuvant therapy.

methodsWe retrospectively identified patients from 2002 to 2015 with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent CRT, pre- and post-CRT PET-CT imaging, and resection. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to evaluate the association of PET-CT characteristics with pCR and survival. ROC curves were generated to define optimal cutoff points for predictive PET-CT characteristics.

results125 patients were included. pCR rate was 28%, and follow-up was 48 mo. On multivariable analysis, patients who had a pCR had lower median post-CRT maximal standardized uptake value (SUV

conclusionsPET/CT may be useful in identifying patients who did not achieve pCR, as well as overall survival in patients undergoing CRT for rectal cancer. Patients with a post-CRT SUV of >4.3 should be considered for operative management, as an estimated 86% of these patients will not have a pCR.

Indexed as

Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChemoradiotherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPhiladelphiaRectal NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesComplete pathologic responseNeoadjuvant chemoradiationPET/CTRectal Cancer

Identifiers

PMID31229791
PMCPMC7751164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.