Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32548297›Full record

ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2020

Evaluating the Use of rCBV as a Tumor Grade and Treatment Response Classifier Across NCI Quantitative Imaging Network Sites: Part II of the DSC-MRI Digital Reference Object (DRO) Challenge.

Laura C Bell, Natenael Semmineh, Hongyu An, Cihat Eldeniz, Richard Wahl, Kathleen M Schmainda, Melissa A Prah, Bradley J Erickson, Panagiotis Korfiatis, Chengyue Wu and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. HybridJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

28 authors.

Laura C BellDivision of Neuroimaging Research, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, AZ.
Natenael SemminehDivision of Neuroimaging Research, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, AZ.
Hongyu AnMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Cihat EldenizMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Richard WahlMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Kathleen M SchmaindaDepartments of Radiology; and.
Melissa A PrahBiophysics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Bradley J EricksonDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Panagiotis KorfiatisDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Chengyue WuOden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, Departments of Biomedical Engineering, Diagnostic Medicine, and Oncology, Livestrong Cancer Institutes, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Anna G SoraceDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Thomas E YankeelovOden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, Departments of Biomedical Engineering, Diagnostic Medicine, and Oncology, Livestrong Cancer Institutes, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Neal RutledgeOden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, Departments of Biomedical Engineering, Diagnostic Medicine, and Oncology, Livestrong Cancer Institutes, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Thomas L ChenevertDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Dariya MalyarenkoDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Yichu LiuUT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX.
Andrew BrennerUT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX.
Leland S HuDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ.
Yuxiang ZhouDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ.
Jerrold L BoxermanDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital and Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI.
Yi-Fen YenDepartment of Radiology, MGH-Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Boston, MA.
Jayashree Kalpathy-CramerDepartment of Radiology, MGH-Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Boston, MA.
Andrew L BeersDepartment of Radiology, MGH-Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Boston, MA.
Mark MuziRadiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Ananth J MadhuranthakamDepartment of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; and.
Marco PinhoDepartment of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; and.
Brian JohnsonDepartment of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; and.
C Chad QuarlesDivision of Neuroimaging Research, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, AZ.

Funding

QUANTITATION OF HUMAN BRAIN TUMOR THERAPY RESPONSE BY MRP01CA085878 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI CHENEVERT, THOMAS L · 2001 to 2017
$31.9M
Quantitative MRI for Predicting Response of Breast Cancer to Neoadjuvant TherapyU01CA142565 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI KARCZMAR, GREGORY S., NANDA, RITA · 2010 to 2019
$4.5M
Quantitative DW-MRI for Early Breast Cancer Treatment Response AssessmentU01CA166104 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI CHENEVERT, THOMAS L, GALBAN, CRAIG J · 2012 to 2019
$4.1M
Quantitative Non-Contrast Perfusion using Arterial Spin Labeling for Assessment of Cancer Therapy ResponseU01CA207091 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI MADHURANTHAKAM, ANANTH J, MALDJIAN, JOSEPH A · 2017 to 2022
$3.1M
Establishing the Validity of Brain Tumor Perfusion ImagingR01CA213158 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Christopher Chad Quarles · 2017 to 2026
$2.9M
Core Laboratory for Advanced PET and MRI image analysisR50CA211270 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Mark Muzi · 2017 to 2026
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA085878NCI NIH HHS R01 CA213158NCI NIH HHS R50 CA211270NCI NIH HHS U01 CA142565NCI NIH HHS U01 CA166104NCI NIH HHS U01 CA207091
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have previously characterized the reproducibility of brain tumor relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) using a dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging digital reference object across 12 sites using a range of imaging protocols and software platforms. As expected, reproducibility was highest when imaging protocols and software were consistent, but decreased when they were variable. Our goal in this study was to determine the impact of rCBV reproducibility for tumor grade and treatment response classification. We found that varying imaging protocols and software platforms produced a range of optimal thresholds for both tumor grading and treatment response, but the performance of these thresholds was similar. These findings further underscore the importance of standardizing acquisition and analysis protocols across sites and software benchmarking.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsCerebral Blood VolumeContrast MediaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm GradingReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesContrast Mediadigital reference objectDSC-MRImultisite consistencyrelative cerebral blood volumestandardizationtreatment responsetumor grading

Identifiers

PMID32548297
PMCPMC7289259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.