ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2023
Tumor size measurements of pancreatic cancer with neoadjuvant therapy based on RECIST guidelines: is MRI as effective as CT?
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI for restaging pancreatic cancer.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a narrative review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Radiologic-pathologic discrepancy in the tumor size assessment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the era of preoperative therapy.Surgery today · 2026Review
- Image registration improves inter-reader agreement of objective response in CT assessment of pancreas adenocarcinoma.European journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Radiomics analysis of dual-energy CT-derived iodine maps for predicting histopathologic grading of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a two-center study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Surgical decision-making after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2025Article
- Reply to: Letter to the Editor of Annals of Surgical Oncology Concerning "Dissecting Tumor Size Underestimation in Pancreatic Cancer: A Comparative Analysis of Preoperative Treatments" by Zhu, Xudong et al.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Engineered exosomes: a promising approach for overcoming challenges in pancreatic cancer therapy.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Review
- Dissecting Tumor Size Underestimation in Pancreatic Cancer: A Comparative Analysis of Preoperative Treatments.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Values of apparent diffusion coefficient in pancreatic cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- CT-based habitat radiomics for predicting treatment response to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy in esophageal cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Currently Debated Topics on Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Narrative Review on Surgical Treatment of Borderline Resectable, Locally Advanced, and Synchronous or Metachronous Oligometastatic Tumor.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare tumor size measurements using CT and MRI in pancreatic cancer (PC) patients with neoadjuvant therapy (NAT).
methodsThis study included 125 histologically confirmed PC patients who underwent NAT. The tumor sizes from CT and MRI before and after NAT were compared by using Bland-Altman analyses and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Variations in tumor size estimates between MRI and CT in relationship to different factors, including NAT methods (chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy), tumor locations (head/neck, body/tail), tumor regression grade (TRG) levels (0-2, 3), N stages (N0, N1/N2) and tumor resection margin status (R0, R1), were further analysed. The McNemar test was used to compare the efficacy of NAT evaluations based on the CT and MRI measurements according to RECIST 1.1 criteria.
resultsThere was no significant difference between the median tumor sizes from CT and MRI before and after NAT (P = 0.44 and 0.39, respectively). There was excellent agreement in tumor size between MRI and CT, with mean size differences and limits of agreement (LOAs) of 1.5 [-9.6 to 12.7] mm and 0.9 [-12.6 to 14.5] mm before NAT (ICC, 0.93) and after NAT (ICC, 0.91), respectively. For all the investigated factors, there was good or excellent correlation (ICC, 0.76 to 0.95) for tumor sizes between CT and MRI. There was no significant difference in the efficacy evaluation of NAT between CT and MRI measurements (P = 1.0).
conclusionMRI and CT have similar performance in assessing PC tumor size before and after NAT.
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.