ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Predictive value of [
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radiomics for predicting microsatellite instability-high status in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Watch and Wait Strategy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Update From Results of Recent Clinical Trials.Cancer medicine · 2026Review
- Construction and Validation of Multi-Omics Predictive Models for Colorectal Cancer Using Machine-Learning Approaches.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Divergent Prognostic Value of Primary Tumor Segmentation Metrics on Baseline FDG PET/CT in Colorectal Cancer.Cancers · 2025Article
- Noninvasive prediction of microsatellite instability in stage II/III rectal cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging radiomics.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
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
objectivesTo investigate [ MATERIALS AND
methods[
resultsAmong 182 CRC patients, 34 (18.7%) exhibited MSI-H, and progression was detected in 48 (26.4%) patients. The difference in CEA levels, tumour differentiation, pTNM, SUVmax, MTV, and IMH index between the two groups was statistically significant and correlated with MSI-H. Higher MTV and IMH indices independently correlated with MSI-H. Meanwhile, most clinicopathologic characteristics and PET-derived parameters were significant for predicting postoperative progression in the overall cohort and MSS subgroup patients, but not in the MSI-H group. Tumour differentiation, mucinous component, and IMH index were identified as independent predictors of progression-free survival for the MSS subgroup. In contrast, only poor/moderate-poor differentiation was associated with progression in the MSI-H group, with none of the PET-derived parameters showing statistical significance.
conclusionThe PET-derived parameters demonstrated promising performance in predicting MSI status in CRC patients and stratifying prognosis in the MSS subgroup. However, these parameters were unable to predict progression risk in MSI-H patients. KEY POINTS: Question Can PET-derived parameters offer a safe and non-invasive method to predict microsatellite instability (MSI) status in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and enhance prognostic stratification? Findings MSI-H CRC exhibited higher [18 F]FDG uptake and intratumoural metabolic heterogeneity compared with microsatellite stability (MSS) tumours, and PET-derived parameters can stratify the progression of CRC patients with MSS but not in MSI-H tumours. Clinical relevance Our study provides a non-invasive method based on PET-derived parameters to predict MSI status and enhance prognostic stratification of CRC patients with MSS, whereas the degree of [18 F]FDG uptake may not reflect the disease progression risk of MSI-H tumours.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40506639What 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.