ReviewFrontiers in oncology2023
MRI VS. FDG-PET for diagnosis of response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The predicting value of post neoadjuvant treatment magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Head-to-head study of [BMC cancer · 2024Trial
- Role of 18FDG PET-CT & MRI for Predicting Response to Neo-Adjuvant Therapy in Rectal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Suspected Locoregional Rectal Cancer Localizations: A Valuable Tool.Case reports in gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: In this study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic values of MRI and FDG-PET for the prediction of the response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACT) of patients with locally advanced Rectal cancer (RC). Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library, were systematically searched through December 2021 for studies that investigated the diagnostic value of MRI and FDG-PET in the prediction of the response of patients with locally advanced RC to NACT. The quality of the included studies was assessed using QUADAS. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR), and the area under the ROC (AUC) of MRI and FDG-PET were calculated using a bivariate generalized linear mixed model, random-effects model, and hierarchical regression. Results: A total number of 74 studies with recruited 4,105 locally advanced RC patients were included in this analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and AUC for MRI were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79-0.89), 5.50 (95% CI: 4.11-7.35), 0.20 (95% CI: 0.14-0.27), and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93), respectively. The summary sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and AUC for FDG-PET were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.85), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.70-0.80), 3.29 (95% CI: 2.64-4.10), 0.25 (95% CI: 0.20-0.31), and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.82-0.88), respectively. Moreover, there were no significant differences between MRI and FDG-PET in sensitivity ( Conclusions: MRI might superior than FGD-PET for the prediction of the response of patients with locally advanced RC to NACT.
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.