Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35704070›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2022

Diffusion-weighted imaging as an imaging biomarker for assessing survival of patients with intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma.

Julaluck Promsorn, Kulyada Eurboonyanun, Payia Chadbunchachai, Chaiwat Apivatanasiri, Kosin Wirasorn, Jarin Chindaprasirt, Aumkhae Sookprasert, Mukesh Harisinghani

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Julaluck PromsornDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Kulyada EurboonyanunDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. kolyso@kku.ac.th.ORCID 0000-0003-4074-9297
Payia ChadbunchachaiDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Chaiwat ApivatanasiriDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Kosin WirasornDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Jarin ChindaprasirtDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Aumkhae SookprasertDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Mukesh HarisinghaniRadiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.
Khon Kaen University · THMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMass-forming cholangiocarcinoma is the most common form of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and is associated with a worse prognosis. This study aimed to assess the role of diffusion-weighted imaging and other imaging features as prognostic markers to predict the survival of patients with intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma (IMCC). MATERIALS AND

methodsThe study included patients with pathologically proven IMCC from January 2011 to January 2018. Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed various imaging findings and manually estimated the area of diffusion restriction. Patients were grouped according to their restriction area into (group 1) restriction ≥ 1/3 of the tumor and (group 2) restriction < 1/3 of the tumor. Statistical analysis was performed to assess the relationship between various imaging features and patients' survival.

resultsSeventy-three patients were included in the study. IMCC patients with tumor size ≥ 5 cm had increased intrahepatic- and peritoneal metastases (p = 039 and p = 0.001 for reader 1 and p = 0.048 and p = 0.057 for reader 2). There was no significant relationship between the diffusion restriction area and tumor size, enhancement pattern, vascular involvement, lymph node metastasis, peritoneal- and distant metastasis. The number of deaths was significantly higher in patients with group 2 restriction (63.6% for group 1 vs. 96.6% for group 2; p = 0.001 for reader 1)(68.2% for group 1 vs. 89.7%% for group 2; p = 0.030 for reader 2). Patients with group 2 restriction had shorter 1- and 3-year survival rates and lower median survival time. Multivariable survival analysis showed two independent prognostic factors relating to poor survival outcomes: peritoneal metastasis (p = 0.04 for reader 1 and p = 0.041 for reader 2) and diffusion restriction < 1/3 (p = 0.011 for reader 1 and p = 0.042 for reader 2). Lymph node metastasis and intrahepatic metastasis were associated with shorter survival in the univariate analysis. However, these factors were non-significant in the multivariate analysis.

conclusionRestriction diffusion of less than 1/3 and peritoneal metastasis were associated with shorter overall survival of IMCC patients. Other features that might correlate with the outcome are suspicious lymph nodes and multifocal lesions.

Indexed as

Bile Duct NeoplasmsCholangiocarcinomaPeritoneal NeoplasmsBile Ducts, IntrahepaticBiomarkersHumansLymphatic MetastasisPrognosisRetrospective StudiesBiomarkersCCACholangiocarcinomaDWIMRIPrognosisSurvival

Identifiers

PMID35704070
OpenAlexW4282970538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.