ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2021
Evaluation of risk classifications for gastrointestinal stromal tumor using multi-parameter Magnetic Resonance analysis.
Article 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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in differentiation of soft tissue sarcoma from benign lesions: a systematic review of literature.Skeletal radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Ultrasound elastography for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Study on the predictive value of preoperative CT features for the mitotic index of GIST based on the nomogram.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Predicting the progression-free survival of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib therapy through multi-sequence magnetic resonance imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- CT gastrography and enterography retrospective analysis: thickened diaphragm crura is a false indication for a gastric fundic tumor.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a comprehensive radiological review.Japanese journal of radiology · 2022Review
- Value ofJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
- A novel CT-based radiomic nomogram for predicting the recurrence and metastasis of gastric stromal tumors.American journal of cancer research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common mesenchymal malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract. At present, it is generally believed that the prognosis of GIST is closely related to its risk classification. It may add value to correctly diagnose and evaluate the risk of invasion using a noninvasive imaging examination prior to surgery. MRI has the advantages of multiple parameters and high soft tissue resolution, which may be the potential method to preoperatively evaluate the risk of GIST. PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of multi-parameter MR analysis for preoperative risk classification of GIST. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this 6-year retrospective study, full MRI examination was performed on all 60 GIST cases confirmed classified by pathology, including 35 cases of very low-to-low-risk GIST and 25 cases of intermediate-to-high-risk GIST. Dynamic contrast-enhanced T1- and T2-weighted images, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were reviewed independently by two radiologists blinded to pathologic results. Volume, ADC ratio, three wash-in indexes (WII) were calculated and compared using t-test or Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed to calculate diagnostic accuracy using ROC analyses. Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05.
resultsAll GISTs were resected. Patient age, sex, tumor location and tumor shape did not differ significantly across the two groups (p = 0.798, 0.767, 0.822 and 0.096, respectively). GIST in the intermediate-to-high-risk group presented significantly greater volume (p = 0.0045), lower ADC ratio (p = 0.0125) and faster enhancement (for WII2, p < 0.0001; for WII3, p = 0.0358) than that of GIST in the very low-to-low-risk group. This combination of the volume, ADC ratio and WII2 provided sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 94.29%, and accuracy of 91.7% for the risk classification of GIST.
conclusionMulti-parameter MR analysis provides a preoperative imaging standard for accurately distinguishing very low-to-low-risk GIST from intermediate-to-high-risk GIST.
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.