ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Radiologic response assessment in patients with desmoid-type fibromatosis treated with percutaneous cryoablation.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePercutaneous cryoablation (PC) has been incorporated among first-line treatment options for desmoid-type fibromatosis (DF). Loco-regional therapies, including PC, induce tissue changes that may precede measurable tumor shrinkage, thereby limiting the reliability of purely dimensional response criteria. To address this limitation, we compared response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1 and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-adapted (M-)RECIST in patients with DF treated with PC. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively identified all consecutive patients with progressing extra-abdominal DF treated with PC. Responses were assessed with RECIST 1.1 and M-RECIST, the latter relying on T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging, as well as unenhanced and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging, to define residual viable tumor. Non-progression (NPR) and overall response rates (ORR) were defined as the percentage of patients without radiological progression and partial/complete responses, respectively.
resultsThirty-four patients (females/males, 26/8) and 37 procedures were identified. RECIST 1.1 and M-RECIST were applicable in 35 and 34 procedures, respectively. At a median follow-up of 15.7 months (interquartile range [IQR] 19.5), RECIST 1.1. Responses were: 10/35 (28.6%) partial response (PR), 22/35 (62.9%) stable disease (SD), and 3/35 (8.6%) progressive disease (PD), with ORR 28.6% and NPR 91.4%. At a median follow-up of 16.0 months (IQR 20.5), M-RECIST responses were: 15/34 (44.1%) complete response (CR), 12/34 (35.3%) PR, 4/34 (11.8%) SD, and 3/34 (8.8%) PD, with ORR 79.4% and NPR 91.2%. Overall concordance was negligible.
conclusionM-RECIST yielded higher NPR/ORR than RECIST 1.1. These findings pave the way for studies addressing whether this shift in response categorization associates with improved outcomes prediction. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This work provides supporting evidence for the implementation of residual viable disease assessment in evaluating DF responses to PC. KEY POINTS: In patients with DF, responses to cryoablation can be characterized using purely dimensional and viability-based criteria. RECIST 1.1 and M-RECIST yielded complete agreement for PD. M-RECIST may refine response categorization below the progression threshold.
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.