Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32524782›Full record

SynthesisKorean journal of radiology2020

MRI Assessment of Complete Response to Preoperative Chemoradiation Therapy for Rectal Cancer: 2020 Guide for Practice from the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology.

Seong Ho Park, Seung Hyun Cho, Sang Hyun Choi, Jong Keon Jang, Min Ju Kim, Seung Ho Kim, Joon Seok Lim, Sung Kyoung Moon, Ji Hoon Park, Nieun Seo and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Korean journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Seong Ho ParkDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. parksh.radiology@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1257-8315
Seung Hyun ChoDepartment of Radiology, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-7617-7302
Sang Hyun ChoiDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6898-6617
Jong Keon JangDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-2938-6635
Min Ju KimDepartment of Radiology, Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-5431-6321
Seung Ho KimDepartment of Radiology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-9402-9642
Joon Seok LimDepartment of Radiology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0334-5042
Sung Kyoung MoonDepartment of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4831-3439
Ji Hoon ParkDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6794-4909
Nieun SeoDepartment of Radiology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8745-6454
Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology Study Group for Rectal Cancer
Ulsan College · KRYonsei University · KREwha Womans University · KRInje University Haeundae Paik Hospital · KRKyung Hee University Dental Hospital · KRKyungpook National University Medical Center · KRSeoul National University Bundang Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo provide an evidence-based guide for the MRI interpretation of complete tumor response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer using visual assessment on T2-weighted imaging (T2) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). MATERIALS AND

methodsPubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched on November 28, 2019 to identify articles on the following issues: 1) sensitivity and specificity of T2 or DWI for diagnosing pathologic complete response (pCR) and the criteria for MRI diagnosis; 2) MRI alone vs. MRI combined with other test(s) in sensitivity and specificity for pCR; and 3) tests to select patients for the watch-and-wait management. Eligible articles were selected according to meticulous criteria and were synthesized.

resultsOf 1615 article candidates, 55 eligible articles (for all three issues combined) were identified. Combined T2 and DWI performed better than T2 alone, with a meta-analytic summary sensitivity of 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.77; I² = 80.60) and summary specificity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.94; I² = 92.61) for diagnosing pCR. The criteria for the complete response on T2 in most studies had the commonality of remarkable tumor decrease to the absence of mass-like or nodular intermediate signal, although somewhat varied, as follows: (near) normalization of the wall; regular, thin, hypointense scar in the luminal side with (near) normal-appearance or homogeneous intermediate signal in the underlying wall; and hypointense thickening of the wall. The criteria on DWI were the absence of a hyperintense signal at high b-value (≥ 800 sec/mm²) in most studies. The specific algorithm to combine T2 and DWI was obscure in half of the studies. MRI combined with endoscopy was the most utilized means to select patients for the watch-and-wait management despite a lack of strong evidence to guide and support a multi-test approach.

conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis provide an evidence-based practical guide for MRI assessment of complete tumor response after CRT for rectal cancer.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsChemoradiotherapyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm StagingPractice Guidelines as TopicPreoperative PeriodRectal NeoplasmsRemission InductionRepublic of KoreaAdenocarcinomaChemoradiationChemoradiotherapyCREvidenceGuidelineMagnetic resonance imagingOrgan preservationRecommendationRectal cancerRegressionRemissionResponseSurveillanceWait and seeWatch and wait

Identifiers

PMID32524782
PMCPMC7289703
OpenAlexW3032976015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.