ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Advanced Multiparametric MRI Strategies for Tumor Restaging After Neoadjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study tested the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in restaging locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) using pathologic T stage (ypT) and pathologic N stage (ypN) as the reference standard.
methodsBetween August 2022 and September 2023, the study enrolled a prospective cohort of 70 gastric cancer patients who underwent NAT and subsequent surgical resection. MRI procedures, including DLSB T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), ZOOMit diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and XD-VIBE dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE), were performed after NAT and before surgery. Four abdominal radiologists independently assigned radiologic T stage (yrT) and radiologic N stage (yrN) based on individual and combined sequences. Inter-reader agreement was quantified using Kendall's coefficient. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by comparing MRI assessments and pathologic outcomes, with pairwise comparisons analyzed via the McNemar test. Subgroup analysis evaluated the performance in identifying good responders to NAT.
resultsInter-reader agreement was almost perfect for T restaging and substantial for N restaging. Diagnostic accuracy for T restaging was 0.432 using DLSB-T2WI, 0.586 using ZOOMit DWI, 0.557 using XD-VIBE DCE, and 0.586 using mpMRI. The accuracy demonstrated by DWI, DCE and mpMRI was superior to that of T2WI (all P < 0.05). For N restaging, the accuracy of the mpMRI protocol was 0.443. Notably, mpMRI achieved an AUC of 0.879 (95% confidence interval 0.835-0.915) for differentiating ypT0-1 tumors.
conclusionsAdvanced mpMRI strategies can serve as a valuable tool for restaging gastric cancer after NAT. Accurately differentiating good responders to neoadjuvant therapy through mpMRI holds significant clinical implications for personalized treatment strategies and improved patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39900717What 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.