ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Value of
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Staging of esophageal cancer using PET/MRI: a systematic review with head-to-head comparison.BMC medical imaging · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of PET-detected nodal upstaging and planning target volume expansion in esophageal cancer radiotherapy planning.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- MR-Guided Radiotherapy in Oesophageal Cancer: From Principles to Practice-A Narrative Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Preoperative esophageal cancer staging assessment based on intravoxel incoherent motion and apparent diffusion coefficient: a comparative study of maximum-diameter slice region of interest and whole volume of interest analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- The prognostic value of positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging in predicting survival in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Article
- TP53-centric ctDNA complements PET/CT for non-invasive assessment of pathological complete response and survival after neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective cohort study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Observational
- Advancing Esophageal Cancer Staging and Restaging: The Role of MRI in Precision Diagnosis.Cancers · 2025Review
- PET/CT and MR Improve Interobserver Agreement in Primary Tumor Determination for Radiotherapy in Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Analyzing risk factors and constructing a predictive model for superficial esophageal carcinoma with submucosal infiltration exceeding 200 micrometers.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Preoperative prediction of clinical and pathological stages for patients with esophageal cancer using PET/CT radiomics.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Article
- The Role of MRI and PET/CT in Radiotherapy Target Volume Determination in Gastrointestinal Cancers-Review of the Literature.Cancers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the value of Methods: Thirty-five patients with resectable ESCC were prospectively enrolled and underwent PET/MRI, PET/CT, and CECT before surgery. The primary tumor and regional lymph nodes were assessed by PET/MRI, PET/CT, MRI, and CECT, respectively, and the diagnostic efficiencies were determined with postoperative pathology as a reference standard. The predictive role of imaging and clinical parameters on pathological staging was analyzed. Results: For primary tumor staging, the accuracy of PET/MRI, MRI, and CECT was 85.7%, 77.1%, and 51.4%, respectively. For lymph node assessment, the accuracy of PET/MRI, PET/CT, MRI, and CECT was 96.2%, 92.0%, 86.8%, and 86.3%, respectively, and the AUCs were 0.883, 0.745, 0.697, and 0.580, respectively. PET/MRI diagnosed 13, 7, and 6 more stations of lymph node metastases than CECT, MRI, and PET/CT, respectively. There was a significant difference in SUV Conclusions:
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.