Trial reportBioMed research international2020
Magnetic Resonance of Rectal Cancer Response to Therapy: An Image Quality Comparison between 3.0 and 1.5 Tesla.
Trial report in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Magnetic Field Strength (1.5 T vs. 3.0 T) on the Prognostic Value of Quantitative ADC Indices in Patients After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Multicenter Observational Study in Korea (The KORHN-PRO Registry).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Pretreatment MRI Versus Postoperative Pathology in Locoregional Staging of Rectal Cancer: A Germany-Wide Multicenter Re-Evaluation Study in Non-Pretreated Patients Based on the OCUM Study.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2026Observational
- Diffusion-weighted imaging in rectal cancer MRI from theory to practice.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- The use of ADC histogram analysis in the diagnosis and determination of aggressiveness of peripheral zone prostate cancer.Polish journal of radiology · 2025Article
- The apparent diffusion coefficient as a biomarker in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and the assessment of therapeutic response to chemoradiation therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Significance of apparent diffusion coefficient in diagnosis of rectal carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Identification of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer eligible for neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone: Results of a retrospective study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Watch-and-Wait Approach to Rectal Cancer: The Role of Imaging.Radiology · 2023Review
- Combining Clinicopathology, IVIM-DWI and Texture Parameters for a Nomogram to Predict Treatment Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- MRI-Based Radiomics Features to Predict Treatment Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Single Center, Prospective Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Surgical Management of Adrenocortical Carcinoma: Current Highlights.Biomedicines · 2021Review
- Article
- Radiomics and Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Rectal Cancer: From Engineering to Clinical Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Preoperative T and N Restaging of Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy: An Accuracy Comparison Between MSCT and MRI.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Low-Rank Matrix Denoising Algorithm-Based MRI Image Feature for Therapeutic Effect Evaluation of NCRT on Rectal Cancer.Journal of healthcare engineering · 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
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate signal intensity (SI) differences between 3.0 T and 1.5 T on T2-weighted (T2w), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in rectal cancer pre-, during, and postneoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). MATERIALS AND
methods22 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent T2w, DWI, and ADC pre-, during, and post-CRT on both 3.0 T MRI and 1.5 T MRI. A radiologist drew regions of interest (ROIs) of the tumor and obturator internus muscle on the selected slice to evaluate SI and relative SI (rSI). Additionally, a subanalysis evaluating the SI before and after-CRT (
resultsSignificant differences were observed for T2w and DWI on 3.0 T MRI compared to 1.5 T MRI pre-, during, and post-CRT (all
conclusionT2w-SI and DWI-SI showed significant differences for 3.0 T compared to 1.5 T in all three controls, while ADCSI showed no significant differences in all three controls on both field strengths. rSI was comparable for 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in rectal cancer patients; therefore, rectal cancer patients can be assessed both at 3.0 T MRI and 1.5 T MRI. However, a significant DWI-
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.