Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37452176›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

Development and multicenter validation of a multiparametric imaging model to predict treatment response in rectal cancer.

Niels W Schurink, Simon R van Kranen, Joost J M van Griethuysen, Sander Roberti, Petur Snaebjornsson, Frans C H Bakers, Shira H de Bie, Gerlof P T Bosma, Vincent C Cappendijk, Remy W F Geenen and 12 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

22 authors at 11 institutions in 4 countries.

Niels W SchurinkDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Simon R van KranenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joost J M van GriethuysenDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sander RobertiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Petur SnaebjornssonDepartment of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frans C H BakersDepartment of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Shira H de BieDepartment of Radiology, Deventer Ziekenhuis, Schalkhaar, The Netherlands.
Gerlof P T BosmaDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Elisabeth Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Vincent C CappendijkDepartment of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Remy W F GeenenDepartment of Radiology, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Peter A NeijenhuisDepartment of Surgery, Alrijne Hospital, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands.
Gerald M PetersonDepartment of Radiology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Cornelis J VeekenDepartment of Radiology, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands.
Roy F A VliegenDepartment of Radiology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Femke P PetersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nino BogveradzeDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Najim El KhababiDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Max J LahayeDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique MaasDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Geerard L BeetsGROW School for Oncology & Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Regina G H Beets-TanDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Doenja M J LambregtsDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. d.lambregts@nki.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2990-0099
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLAlrijne Ziekenhuis · NLDeventer Ziekenhuis · NLElisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NLIJsselland Ziekenhuis · NLJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLNorthwest Hospital · USSpaarne Gasthuis · NLUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop and validate a multiparametric model to predict neoadjuvant treatment response in rectal cancer at baseline using a heterogeneous multicenter MRI dataset.

methodsBaseline staging MRIs (T2W (T2-weighted)-MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) / apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)) of 509 patients (9 centres) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) were collected. Response was defined as (1) complete versus incomplete response, or (2) good (Mandard tumor regression grade (TRG) 1-2) versus poor response (TRG3-5). Prediction models were developed using combinations of the following variable groups: (1) Non-imaging: age/sex/tumor-location/tumor-morphology/CRT-surgery interval (2) Basic staging: cT-stage/cN-stage/mesorectal fascia involvement, derived from (2a) original staging reports, or (2b) expert re-evaluation (3) Advanced staging: variables from 2b combined with cTN-substaging/invasion depth/extramural vascular invasion/tumor length (4) Quantitative imaging: tumour volume + first-order histogram features (from T2W-MRI and DWI/ADC) Models were developed with data from 6 centers (n = 412) using logistic regression with the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selector Operator (LASSO) feature selection, internally validated using repeated (n = 100) random hold-out validation, and externally validated using data from 3 centers (n = 97).

resultsAfter external validation, the best model (including non-imaging and advanced staging variables) achieved an area under the curve of 0.60 (95%CI=0.48-0.72) to predict complete response and 0.65 (95%CI=0.53-0.76) to predict a good response. Quantitative variables did not improve model performance. Basic staging variables consistently achieved lower performance compared to advanced staging variables.

conclusionsOverall model performance was moderate. Best results were obtained using advanced staging variables, highlighting the importance of good-quality staging according to current guidelines. Quantitative imaging features had no added value (in this heterogeneous dataset). CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Predicting tumour response at baseline could aid in tailoring neoadjuvant therapies for rectal cancer. This study shows that image-based prediction models are promising, though are negatively affected by variations in staging quality and MRI acquisition, urging the need for harmonization. KEY POINTS: This multicenter study combining clinical information and features derived from MRI rendered disappointing performance to predict response to neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer. Best results were obtained with the combination of clinical baseline information and state-of-the-art image-based staging variables, highlighting the importance of good quality staging according to current guidelines and staging templates. No added value was found for quantitative imaging features in this multicenter retrospective study. This is likely related to acquisition variations, which is a major problem for feature reproducibility and thus model generalizability.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyRectal NeoplasmsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeChemoradiotherapyMagnetic resonance imagingRectal neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID37452176
PMCPMC10667134
OpenAlexW4384281967

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.