ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2020
Diffusion model comparison identifies distinct tumor sub-regions and tracks treatment response.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intra-voxel incoherent motion biomarker repeatability in healthy volunteers and sensitivity to chemoradiotherapy-induced changes in patients with uterine cervical cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Diffusion MRI signal cumulants and hepatocyte microstructure at fixed diffusion time: Insights from simulations, 9.4T imaging, and histology.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
- Habitat Imaging of Tumors Enables High Confidence Sub-Regional Assessment of Response to Therapy.Cancers · 2022Article
- Diffusion model comparison identifies distinct tumor sub-regions and tracks treatment response.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMRI biomarkers of tumor response to treatment are typically obtained from parameters derived from a model applied to pre-treatment and post-treatment data. However, as tumors are spatially and temporally heterogeneous, different models may be necessary in different tumor regions, and model suitability may change over time. This work evaluates how the suitability of two diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI models varies spatially within tumors at the voxel level and in response to radiotherapy, potentially allowing inference of qualitatively different tumor microenvironments.
methodsDW-MRI data were acquired in CT26 subcutaneous allografts before and after radiotherapy. Restricted and time-independent diffusion models were compared, with regions well-described by the former hypothesized to reflect cellular tissue, and those well-described by the latter expected to reflect necrosis or oedema. Technical and biological validation of the percentage of tissue described by the restricted diffusion microstructural model (termed %MM) was performed through simulations and histological comparison.
resultsSpatial and radiotherapy-related variation in model suitability was observed. %MM decreased from a mean of 64% at baseline to 44% 6 days post-radiotherapy in the treated group. %MM correlated negatively with the percentage of necrosis from histology, but overestimated it due to noise. Within MM regions, microstructural parameters were sensitive to radiotherapy-induced changes.
conclusionsThere is spatial and radiotherapy-related variation in different models' suitability for describing diffusion in tumor tissue, suggesting the presence of different and changing tumor sub-regions. The biological and technical validation of the proposed %MM cancer imaging biomarker suggests it correlates with, but overestimates, the percentage of necrosis.
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.