Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34745957›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Predictive Value of Multiparametric MRI for Response to Single-Cycle Induction Chemo-Immunotherapy in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Konstantin Hellwig, Stephan Ellmann, Markus Eckstein, Marco Wiesmueller, Sandra Rutzner, Sabine Semrau, Benjamin Frey, Udo S Gaipl, Antoniu Oreste Gostian, Arndt Hartmann and 5 more

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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Konstantin HellwigInstitute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Stephan EllmannInstitute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Markus EcksteinInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Marco WiesmuellerInstitute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Sandra RutznerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Sabine SemrauDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Benjamin FreyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Udo S GaiplDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Antoniu Oreste GostianComprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Region of Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
Arndt HartmannInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Heinrich IroComprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Region of Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
Rainer FietkauDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Michael UderInstitute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Markus HechtDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Tobias BäuerleInstitute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Erlangen · DEFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the predictive value of multiparametric MRI for treatment response evaluation of induction chemo-immunotherapy in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

methodsTwenty-two patients with locally advanced, histologically confirmed head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who were enrolled in the prospective multicenter phase II CheckRad-CD8 trial were included in the current analysis. In this unplanned secondary single-center analysis, all patients who received contrast-enhanced MRI at baseline and in week 4 after single-cycle induction therapy with cisplatin/docetaxel combined with the immune checkpoint inhibitors tremelimumab and durvalumab were included. In week 4, endoscopy with representative re-biopsy was performed to assess tumor response. All lesions were segmented in the baseline and restaging multiparametric MRI, including the primary tumor and lymph node metastases. The volume of interest of the respective lesions was volumetrically measured, and time-resolved mean intensities of the golden-angle radial sparse parallel-volume-interpolated gradient-echo perfusion (GRASP-VIBE) sequence were extracted. Additional quantitative parameters including the T1 ratio, short-TI inversion recovery ratio, apparent diffusion coefficient, and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) values were measured. A model based on parallel random forests incorporating the MRI parameters from the baseline MRI was used to predict tumor response to therapy. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the prognostic performance.

resultsFifteen patients (68.2%) showed pathologic complete response in the re-biopsy, while seven patients had a residual tumor (31.8%). In all patients, the MRI-based primary tumor volume was significantly lower after treatment. The baseline DCE parameters of time to peak and wash-out were significantly different between the pathologic complete response group and the residual tumor group (p < 0.05). The developed model, based on parallel random forests and DCE parameters, was able to predict therapy response with a sensitivity of 78.7% (95% CI 71.24-84.93) and a specificity of 78.6% (95% CI 67.13-87.48). The model had an area under the ROC curve of 0.866 (95% CI 0.819-0.914).

conclusionsDCE parameters indicated treatment response at follow-up, and a random forest machine learning algorithm based on DCE parameters was able to predict treatment response to induction chemo-immunotherapy.

Indexed as

DCE-MRIdynamic contrast-enhanced imaginghead and neck cancerimmunotherapymagnetic resonance imagingmultiparametric MRI

Identifiers

PMID34745957
PMCPMC8567752
OpenAlexW3211192187

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.