Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32000858›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2020

Role of whole-body MRI for treatment response assessment in multiple myeloma: comparison between clinical response and imaging response.

Ho Young Park, Kyung Won Kim, Min A Yoon, Min Hee Lee, Eun Jin Chae, Jeong Hyun Lee, Hye Won Chung, Dok Hyun Yoon

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Imaging of Multiple Myeloma: Present and Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ho Young ParkDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Image Metrics, Clinical Trial Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Kyung Won KimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Image Metrics, Clinical Trial Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. medimash@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1532-5970
Min A YoonDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Image Metrics, Clinical Trial Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Min Hee LeeDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Image Metrics, Clinical Trial Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Eun Jin ChaeDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Image Metrics, Clinical Trial Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Jeong Hyun LeeDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Image Metrics, Clinical Trial Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Hye Won ChungDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Image Metrics, Clinical Trial Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Dok Hyun YoonDepartment of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Ulsan College · KR

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea 2017R1A2B3011475
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole-body MRI (WB-MRI) including diffusion-weighted image (DWI) have been widely used in patients with multiple myeloma. However, evidence for the value of WB-MRI in the evaluation of treatment response remains sparse. Therefore, we evaluated the role of WB-MRI in the response assessment.

methodsIn our WB-MRI registry, we searched multiple myeloma patients treated with chemotherapy who underwent both baseline and follow-up WB-MRI scans. Clinical responses were categorized as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD), using IMWG criteria. Using RECIST 1.1, MD Anderson (MDA) criteria, and MDA-DWI criteria, imaging responses on WB-MRI were rated as CR, PR, SD, or PD by two radiologists independently. Then, discrepancy cases were resolved by consensus. Weighted Kappa analysis was performed to evaluate agreement between the imaging and clinical responses. The diagnostic accuracy of image responses in the evaluation of clinical CR, objective response (CR and PR), and PD was calculated.

resultsForty-two eligible patients were included. There was moderate agreement between imaging and clinical responses (κ = 0.54 for RECIST 1.1, κ = 0.58 for MDA criteria, κ = 0.69 for MDA-DWI criteria). WB-MRI showed excellent diagnostic accuracy in assessment of clinical PD (sensitivity 88.9%, specificity 94.7%, positive predictive value [PPV] 84.2%, negative predictive value [NPV] 96.4% in all three imaging criteria). By contrast, WB-MRI showed low accuracy in assessment of clinical CR (sensitivity 4.5%, specificity 98.1%, PPV 50.0%, NPV 71.2% in all three imaging criteria). As to the clinical objective response, the diagnostic accuracy was higher in MDA-DWI criteria than RECIST 1.1 and MDA criteria (sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV, 84.2%/94.4%/98.0%/65.4, 54.4%/100%/100%/40.9, and 61.4%/94.4%/97.2%/43.6%, respectively).

conclusionsIn the imaging response assessment of multiple myeloma, WB-MRI showed excellent performance in the evaluation of PD, but not in the assessment of CR or objective response. When adding DWI to imaging response criteria, diagnostic accuracy for objective response was improved and agreement between imaging and clinical responses was increased.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultiple MyelomaTreatment OutcomeWhole Body ImagingMagnetic resonance imagingMultiple myelomaResponse assessmentWhole-body imaging

Identifiers

PMID32000858
PMCPMC6993415
OpenAlexW3009202602

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.