Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35646677›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

MRI-Based Radiomics Features to Predict Treatment Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Single Center, Prospective Study.

Bi-Yun Chen, Hui Xie, Yuan Li, Xin-Hua Jiang, Lang Xiong, Xiao-Feng Tang, Xiao-Feng Lin, Li Li, Pei-Qiang Cai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Radiomics in colorectal cancer patients.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
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.

Bi-Yun ChenDepartment of Medical Imaging, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Hui XieDepartment of Medical Imaging, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Yuan LiDepartment of Colorectal, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Xin-Hua JiangDepartment of Medical Imaging, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Lang XiongDepartment of Medical Imaging, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Xiao-Feng TangDepartment of Ultrasound, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Xiao-Feng LinDepartment of Medical Imaging, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Li LiDepartment of Medical Imaging, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Pei-Qiang CaiDepartment of Medical Imaging, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is a prospective, single center study aimed to evaluate the predictive power of peritumor and intratumor radiomics features assessed using T2 weight image (T2WI) of baseline magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluating pathological good response to NAC in patients with LARC (including Tany N+ or T3/4a Nany but not T4b). In total, 137 patients with LARC received NAC between April 2014 and August 2020. All patients were undergoing contrast-enhanced MRI and 129 patients contained small field of view (sFOV) sequence which were performed prior to treatment. The tumor regression grade standard was based on pathological response. The training and validation sets (n=91 vs. n=46) were established by random allocation of the patients. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was applied to estimate the performance of different models based on clinical characteristics and radiomics features obtained from MRI, including peritumor and intratumor features, in predicting treatment response; these effects were calculated using the area under the curve (AUC). The performance and agreement of the nomogram were estimated using calibration plots. In total, 24 patients (17.52%) achieved a complete or near-complete response. For the individual radiomics model in the validation set, the performance of peritumor radiomics model in predicting treatment response yield an AUC of 0.838, while that of intratumor radiomics model is 0.805, which show no statically significant difference between then(P>0.05). The traditional and selective clinical features model shows a poor predictive ability in treatment response (AUC=0.596 and 0.521) in validation set. The AUC of combined radiomics model was improved compared to that of the individual radiomics models in the validation sets (AUC=0.844). The combined clinic-radiomics model yield the highest AUC (0.871) in the validation set, although it did not improve the performance of the radiomics model for predicting treatment response statically (P>0.05). Good agreement and discrimination were observed in the nomogram predictions. Both peritumor and intratumor radiomics features performed similarly in predicting a good response to NAC in patients with LARC. The clinic-radiomics model showed the best performance in predicting treatment response.

Indexed as

magnetic resonance imaging radiomicsneoadjuvant chemotherapynomogramrectal cancertreatment response

Identifiers

PMID35646677
PMCPMC9133669
OpenAlexW4280505150

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.