Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37993745›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024

Pre- and Post-treatment Double-Sequential-Point Dynamic Radiomic Model in the Response Prediction of Gastric Cancer to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: 3-Year Survival Analysis.

Yinkui Wang, Lei Tang, Xiangji Ying, Jiazheng Li, Fei Shan, Shuangxi Li, Yongning Jia, Kan Xue, Rulin Miao, Zhemin Li and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Yinkui WangGastrointestinal Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Hai-Dian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Lei TangDepartment of Radiology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xiangji YingDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jiazheng LiDepartment of Radiology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Fei ShanGastrointestinal Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Hai-Dian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Shuangxi LiGastrointestinal Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Hai-Dian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yongning JiaGastrointestinal Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Hai-Dian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Kan XueGastrointestinal Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Hai-Dian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Rulin MiaoGastrointestinal Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Hai-Dian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Zhemin LiGastrointestinal Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Hai-Dian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Ziyu LiGastrointestinal Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Hai-Dian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China. ziyu_li@hsc.pku.edu.cn.
Jiafu JiGastrointestinal Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Hai-Dian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China. jijiafu@hsc.pku.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6878-5543
Peking University · CNJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Beijing Municipal Health Commission DFL20181103Beijing Nova Program 20220484111National Natural Science Foundation of China 31870805Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality Z180001PKU-Baidu Fund 2020BD027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrognosis prediction of patients with gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is suboptimal. This study aims to develop and validate a dynamic radiomic model for prognosis prediction of patients with gastric cancer on the basis of baseline and posttreatment features. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis single-center cohort study included patients with gastric adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy from June 2009 to July 2015 in the Gastrointestinal Cancer Center of Peking University Cancer Hospital. Their clinicopathological data, pre-treatment and post-treatment computed tomography (CT) images, and pathological reports were retrieved and analyzed. Four prediction models were developed and validated using tenfold cross-validation, with death within 3 years as the outcome. Model discrimination was compared by the area under the curve (AUC). The final radiomic model was evaluated for calibration and clinical utility using Hosmer-Lemeshow tests and decision curve analysis.

resultsThe study included 205 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma [166 (81%) male; mean age 59.9 (SD 10.3) years], with 71 (34.6%) deaths occurring within 3 years. The radiomic model alone demonstrated better discrimination than the pathological T stage (ypT) stage model alone (cross-validated AUC 0.598 versus 0.516, P = 0.009). The final radiomic model, which incorporated both radiomic and clinicopathological characteristics, had a significantly higher cross-validated AUC (0.769) than the ypT stage model (0.516), the radiomics alone model (0.598), and the ypT plus other clinicopathological characteristics model (0.738; all P < 0.05). Decision curve analysis confirmed the clinical utility of the final radiomic model.

conclusionsThe developed radiomic model had good accuracy and could be used as a decision aid tool in clinical practice to differentiate prognosis of patients with gastric cancer.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaStomach NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyRadiomicsRetrospective StudiesSurvival AnalysisGastric cancerNeoadjuvant chemotherapyPrediction modelPrognosisRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID37993745
OpenAlexW4388927259

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.