ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2025
Contrast-enhanced MRI and CT in evaluating treatment response for recurrent endometrial cancer: a retrospective case-control study.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in evaluating treatment response for recurrent endometrial cancer (EC), and to assess the added value of integrating imaging findings with biomarker data.
methodsThis retrospective case-control study included 217 patients with recurrent EC treated between January 2020 and December 2023. Patients were divided into response (n = 102) and non-response (n = 115) based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (1.1). An internal validation cohort (n = 142) and an external cohort (n = 168) were also analyzed. Preoperative CE-MRI and CT scans were reviewed by experienced radiologists. Biomarker positivity rates - including estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), cancer antigen 125 (CA125), cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and ovarian cancer-related protein 1 (OVX1), were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed to evaluate diagnostic performance, and an integrated model combining imaging and biomarkers was developed.
resultsCE-MRI achieved an AUC of 0.864, sensitivity of 78.3%, and specificity of 86.3%, while CT showed an AUC of 0.854, sensitivity of 81.2%, and specificity of 83.4%. The integrated model improved performance with an AUC of 0.889, sensitivity of 94.3%, and specificity of 81.2%. Internal and external validation models yielded AUCs of 0.859 and 0.918, respectively.
conclusionsBoth CE-MRI and CT are effective in assessing treatment response, with CE-MRI offering slightly superior specificity. Integration of imaging and biomarker data significantly enhances diagnostic accuracy, supporting its potential in optimizing individualized treatment strategies for recurrent EC.
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.