ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Discordance in tumour response assessment for gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy using different methods.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate whether different tumour response assessment methods yield inconsistent results following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with gastric cancer and to identify the methods most strongly associated with pathological response and prognosis.
methodsThis study included 217 patients with gastric cancer who underwent NACT. Tumour volume, area, and thickness were measured on baseline and post-treatment computed tomography (CT) scans. Reduction rates (%Δ measurement) for each parameter were calculated, and the concordance between different %Δ measurements was assessed. Tumour regression grade (TRG) and overall survival (OS) data were recorded, and the predictive performance of the assessment methods was evaluated.
resultsThe concordance between different %Δ measurements ranged from fair to moderate (κ = 0.26-0.50), with 24.88-36.87% of patients showing discordant treatment response assessments across methods. The area under the curve (AUC) values for distinguishing pathological responders from non-responders were 0.70 for %Δ volume, 0.75 for %Δ area, and 0.67 for %Δ thickness. For OS prediction, the c-index values were 0.60 for %Δ volume, 0.59 for %Δ area, and 0.54 for %Δ thickness. Additionally, discrepancies were observed between %Δ measurements and TRG. Both %Δ volume and %Δ area were effective in stratifying OS in patients with TRG 2-3.
conclusionTumour response assessment methods showed discordance across different measurements, with volumetric and planimetric measurements offering superior accuracy than linear measurements in predicting both pathological response and OS. Additionally, %Δ volume and %Δ area were effective in stratifying OS in patients with TRG 2-3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40921830What 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.