Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38694706›Full record

ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2024

Evaluating complete response prediction rates in locally advanced rectal cancer with different radiomics segmentation approaches.

Gizem Kaval, Merve Gulbiz Dagoglu Kartal, Sena Azamat, Eda Cingoz, Gokhan Ertas, Sule Karaman, Basak Kurtuldu, Metin Keskin, Neslihan Berker, Senem Karabulut and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Clinical target volume radiomics from planning CT for pretreatment response prediction  in rectal cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gizem KavalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Merve Gulbiz Dagoglu KartalDepartment of Radiology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Sena AzamatDepartment of Radiology, Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Eda CingozDepartment of Radiology, Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Gokhan ErtasDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Sule KaramanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Basak KurtulduDepartment of Emergency, Hackalibaba Hospital, Trabzon, Türkiye.
Metin KeskinDepartment of General Surgery, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Neslihan BerkerDepartment of Pathology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Senem KarabulutDepartment of Medical Oncology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Ethem Nezih OralDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Nergiz Dagoglu SakinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Turkish Society of Hematology · TRIstanbul University · TRYeditepe University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Studies examining prediction of complete response (CR) in locally advanced rectum cancer (LARC) from pre/post chemoradiotherapy (CRT) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are performed mostly with segmentations of the tumor, whereas only in two studies segmentation included tumor and mesorectum. Additionally, pelvic extramesorectal region, which is included in the clinical target volume (CTV) of radiotherapy, may contain information. Therefore, we aimed to compare predictive rates of radiomics analysis with features extracted from segmentations of tumor, tumor+mesorectum, and CTV. Methods and materials: Ninety-three LARC patients who underwent CRT in our institution between 2012 and 2019 were retrospectively scanned. Patients were divided into CR and non-CR groups. Tumor, tumor+mesorectum and CTV were segmented on T2 preCRT MRI images. Extracted features were compared for best area under the curve (AUC) of CR prediction with 15 machine-learning models. Results: CR was observed in 25 patients (26.8%), of whom 13 had pathological, and 12 had clinical complete response. For tumor, tumor+mesorectum and CTV segmentations, the best AUC were 0.84, 0.81, 0.77 in the training set and 0.85, 0.83 and 0.72 in the test set, respectively; sensitivity and specificity for the test set were 76%, 90%, 76% and 71%, 67% and 62%, respectively. Conclusion: Although the highest AUC result is obtained from the tumor segmentation, the highest accuracy and sensitivity are detected with tumor+mesorectum segmentation and these findings align with previous studies, suggesting that the mesorectum contains valuable insights for CR. The lowest result is obtained with CTV segmentation. More studies with mesorectum and pelvic nodal regions included in segmentation are needed.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyMagnetic Resonance ImagingRectal NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRadiomicsRetrospective Studiespathological complete response ratioradiomicsradiotherapyrectal cancerwatch and wait

Identifiers

PMID38694706
PMCPMC11061551
OpenAlexW4394890554

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.