ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2019
Comparison of computed tomography imaging analyses for evaluation after chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective pooled analysis of six phase II clinical trials.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Subcutaneous Envafolimab in dMMR/MSI-H Locally Advanced Colon Cancer.Targeted oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are several methods for analyzing computed tomography (CT) images to evaluate chemotherapy efficacy in clinical studies. However, the optimal analysis method for each drug is still under debate. We conducted a pooled analysis using data from six phase II studies to evaluate four analysis methods in colorectal cancers (CRCs): morphological responses (MRs), early tumor shrinkage (ETS), depth of response (DpR), and response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) ver.1.1.
methodsWe included 249 patients in this analysis. Pretreatments and findings of subsequent CT imaging were analyzed based on the MR, ETS, DpR, and RECIST ver.1.1. Differences in overall survival (OS) between the responders and non-responders according to each method were evaluated using survival analysis.
resultsThe responders had significantly better hazard ratios (HRs) for OS, in terms of DpR (≥ median), ETS, objective response rate (ORR) [complete response (CR) + partial response (PR)], and disease control rate [CR + PR + stable disease (SD)]. Patients with right-sided colon cancers showed better HRs for DpR, but not for ETS and ORR. Contrastingly, patients with left-sided CRCs had better HRs for ETS, DpR, and ORR. MR was not associated with outcomes in this study, even in cases where bevacizumab was used. In patients with liver metastasis, ETS, DpR, and ORR showed better HRs, but not in those with lung metastasis.
conclusionEarly tumor shrinkage and DpR might be predictive markers only in left-sided CRCs with liver metastasis. Each imaging analysis has a different value based on the primary and metastatic sites.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31332611What 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.