Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32975646›Full record

SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2021

Comparison of percentage changes in quantitative diffusion parameters for assessing pathological complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Kai Chen, Hua-Long She, Tao Wu, Fang Hu, Tao Li, Liang-Ping Luo

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. CSCO guidelines for colorectal cancer version 2023: Updates and insights.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2023
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kai Chen *Medical Imaging Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, 613 Huangpu Street, Guangzhou, 510630, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0491-4910
Hua-Long She *Medical Imaging Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, 613 Huangpu Street, Guangzhou, 510630, China.
Tao WuDepartment of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xiangnan University (Clinical College), 25 Renmin West Road, Chenzhou, 423000, China.
Fang HuCollege of Medical Imaging and Medical Examination, Xiangnan University, 25 Renmin West Road, Chenzhou, 423000, China.
Tao LiCollege of Medical Imaging and Medical Examination, Xiangnan University, 25 Renmin West Road, Chenzhou, 423000, China. xnxylitiao@163.com.
Liang-Ping LuoMedical Imaging Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, 613 Huangpu Street, Guangzhou, 510630, China. tluolp@jnu.edu.cn.
First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University · CNXiangnan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of percentage changes in apparent diffusion coefficient (∆ADC%) and slow diffusion coefficient (∆D%) for assessing pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).

methodsA systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed to retrieve related original studies. For each parameter (∆ADC% and ∆D%), we pooled the sensitivity, specificity and calculated the area under summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity among the studies on ∆ADC%.

results15 original studies (804 patients with 805 lesions, 15 studies on ∆ADC%, 4 of the studies both on ∆ADC% and ∆D%) were included. pCR was observed in 213 lesions (26.46%). For the assessment of pCR, the pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUROC of ∆ADC% were 0.83 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.76, 0.89), 0.74 (95% CI 0.66, 0.81), 0.87 (95% CI 0.83, 0.89), and ∆D% were 0.70 (95% CI 0.52, 0.84), 0.81 (95% CI 0.65, 0.90), 0.81 (95% CI 0.77, 0.84), respectively. In the four studies on the both metrics, ∆ADC% yielded an equivalent diagnostic performance (AUROC 0.80 [95% CI 0.76, 0.83]) to ∆D%, but lower than in the studies (n = 11) only on ∆ADC% (AUROC 0.88 [95% CI 0.85, 0.91]). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses showed no significant factors affecting heterogeneity.

conclusionsOur meta-analysis confirms that ∆ADC% could reliably evaluate pCR in patients with LARC after neoadjuvant therapy. ∆D% may not be superior to ∆ADC%, which deserves further investigation.

Indexed as

Neoadjuvant TherapyRectal NeoplasmsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansRectumTreatment OutcomeDiffusion weighted MRINeoadjuvant therapyRectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID32975646
OpenAlexW3088674880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.