ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Treatment response assessment to chemotherapy with bevacizumab for colorectal liver metastasis by contrast-enhanced ultrasound.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Though contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) perfusion parameters have been approved to be potential indicators for response to chemotherapy in solid tumors, their ability in assessment of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) to chemotherapy with bevacizumab (Bev) has rarely been investigated. Methods: From March 2021 to May 2022, 115 consecutive CRLM patients with CEUS pre- and post-2 months' chemotherapy with Bev were prospectively enrolled. One target lesion per patient underwent CEUS quantitative analysis with SonoLiver software. Rise time, time-to-peak, mean transit time, maximal intensity (IMAX), and area under the time-intensity curve (AUC) were assessed with region of interest (ROI) selected on whole lesion, lesion periphery, and internal lesion, respectively. The reduction and ratio of post- to pre-treatment in parameters were investigated in development cohort (n=89) and validated in internal validation cohort (n=26) according to the chronological order. Results: With modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor as reference, 48, 14 responders and 41, 12 non-responders were included in development and validation cohort, respectively. Significantly smaller values of IMAX and AUC on ROIwhole, ROIperipheral, and ROIinternal, were observed post-treatment in development cohort (all P<0.05). In predicting treatment response, the influence of ROI selection was observed when using ∆IMAX and ∆AUC, while no influence was observed using ratios. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) for ∆IMAX and ∆AUC on ROIperipheral were 0.939 (0.867-0.979), 0.951 (0.883-0.985), and 0.917 (0.740-0.988), 0.923 (0.748-0.990) in development and validation cohort, respectively. For ratios of IMAX and AUC, AUROCs were 0.976 (0.919-0.997), 0.938 (0.865-0.978), and 0.899 (0.717-0.982), 0.982 (0.836-1.000) in development and validation cohort, respectively. Conclusions: IMAX and AUC showed significant reductions in responders, and different analyses ROIs influence the performance of ∆IMAX and ∆AUC in response assessment. Parameters derived from ROI peripheral exhibited the most promising results in predicting treatment response.
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.