ArticleBMC cancer2024
Values of apparent diffusion coefficient in pancreatic cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- MRI for restaging pancreatic cancer.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Surgical Perspectives on Neoadjuvant Therapy in Borderline Resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.Cancers · 2026Review
- Surgical decision-making in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer in the era of neoadjuvant therapy: from response assessment to individualized operative strategy.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the values of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for the treatment response evaluation in pancreatic cancer (PC) patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (NAT).
methodsThis study included 103 NAT patients with histologically proven PC. ADC maps were generated using monoexponential diffusion-weighted imaging (b values: 50, 800 s/mm
resultsThe minimum, maximum, and mean ADC values all increased dramatically after NAT, rising from 23.4 to 25.4% (all p < 0.001): mean (average: 1.626 × 10
conclusionsThe ADC values of PC increased significantly following NAT; however, the percentage increases failed to provide any predictive value for the resection margin status or TRG levels.
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.