Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34249707›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Evaluating the Histopathology of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma by Intravoxel Incoherent Motion-Diffusion Weighted Imaging Comparing With Diffusion-Weighted Imaging.

Qi Liu, Jinggang Zhang, Man Jiang, Yue Zhang, Tongbing Chen, Jilei Zhang, Bei Li, Jie Chen, Wei Xing

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qi LiuDepartment of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Jinggang ZhangDepartment of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Man JiangDepartment of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Yue ZhangDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Tongbing ChenDepartment of Pathology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Jilei ZhangClinical Science, Philips Healthcare, Shanghai, China.
Bei LiDepartment of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Jie ChenDepartment of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Wei XingDepartment of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Soochow University · CNPhilips (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the differences between intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging (IVIM-DWI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in evaluating the histopathological characters of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

methodsThis retrospective study enrolled 50 patients with PDAC confirmed by pathology from December 2018 to May 2020. All patients underwent DWI and IVIM-DWI before surgeries. Patients were classified into low- and high-fibrosis groups. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), diffusion coefficient (D), false diffusion coefficient (D*), and perfusion fraction (f) were measured by two radiologists, respectively in GE AW 4.7 post-processing station, wherein ADC values were derived by mono-exponential fits and f, D, D* values were derived by biexponential fits. The tumor tissue was stained with Sirius red, CD34, and CK19 to evaluate fibrosis, microvascular density (MVD), and tumor cell density. Furthermore, the correlation between ADC, D, D*, and f values and histopathological results was analyzed.

resultsThe D values were lower in the high-fibrosis group than in the low-fibrosis group, while the f values were opposite. Further, no statistically significant differences were detected in ADC and D* values between the high- and low-fibrosis groups. The AUC of D and f values had higher evaluation efficacy in the high- and low-fibrosis groups than ADC values. A significant negative correlation was established between D values, and fibrosis and a significant positive correlation were observed between f values and fibrosis. No statistical difference was detected between DWI/IVIM parameters values and MVD or tumor cell density except for the positive correlation between D* values and tumor cell density.

conclusionsD and f values derived from the IVIM model had higher sensitivity and diagnostic performance for grading fibrosis in PDAC compared to the conventional DWI model. IVIM-DWI may have the potential as an imaging biomarker for predicting the fibrosis grade of PDAC.

Indexed as

biomarkerdiffusion-weighted imagingfibrosisintravoxel incoherent motion-diffusion weighted imagingpancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Identifiers

PMID34249707
PMCPMC8261286
OpenAlexW3173374194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.