ArticleNeuroradiology2024
Prognostic value of radiological T category using conventional MRI in patients with oral tongue cancer: comparison with pathological T category.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- MRI radiomics-based predictive modeling for risk stratification and prognostication in oral tongue carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- MRI-based tumor signatures as prognostic biomarkers in oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the radiological tumor (T)-category using multiparametric MRI with the pathological T category in patients with oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma (OTSCC) and to examine which is a better predictor of prognosis.
methodsThis retrospective study included 110 consecutive patients with surgically resected primary OTSCC who underwent preoperative contrast-enhanced MRI. T categories determined by maximum diameter and depth of invasion were retrospectively assessed based on the pathological specimen and multiparametric MRI. The MRI assessment included the axial and coronal T1-weighted image (T1WI), axial T2-weighted image (T2WI), coronal fat-suppressed T2WI, and axial and coronal fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced T1WI (CET1WI). Axial and coronal CET1WI measurements were divided into two groups: measurements excluding peritumoral enhancement (MEP) and measurements including peritumoral enhancement. The prognostic values for recurrence and disease-specific survival after radiological and pathological T categorization of cases into T1/T2 and T3/T4 groups were compared.
resultsThe T category of MEP on coronal CET1WI was the most relevant prognostic factor for recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.30, p = 0.001] and the HR was higher than the HR for pathological assessment (HR = 2.26, p = 0.026). The T category determined by MEP on coronal CET1WI was also the most relevant prognostic factor for disease-specific survival (HR = 3.12, p = 0.03), and the HR was higher than the HR for pathological assessment (HR = 2.02, p = 0.20).
conclusionThe T category determined by MEP on the coronal CET1WI was the best prognostic factor among all radiological and pathological T category measurements.
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.