↓ Skip to main content

Diffusion-weighted MRI to assess response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: main interpretation pitfalls and their use for teaching

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Diffusion-weighted MRI to assess response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: main interpretation pitfalls and their use for teaching
Published in
European Radiology, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00330-017-4830-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Doenja M. J. Lambregts, Miriam M. van Heeswijk, Andrea Delli Pizzi, Saskia G. C. van Elderen, Luisa Andrade, Nicky H. G. M. Peters, Peter A. M. Kint, Margreet Osinga-de Jong, Shandra Bipat, Rik Ooms, Max J. Lahaye, Monique Maas, Geerard L. Beets, Frans C. H. Bakers, Regina G. H. Beets-Tan

Abstract

To establish the most common image interpretation pitfalls for non-expert readers using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) to assess response to chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer and to explore the use of these pitfalls in an expert teaching setting. Two independent non-expert readers (R1 and R2) scored the restaging DW MRI scans (b1,000 DWI, in conjunction with ADC maps and T2-W MRI scans for anatomical reference) in 100 patients for the likelihood of a complete response versus residual tumour using a five-point confidence score. The readers received expert feedback and the final response outcome for each case. The supervising expert documented any potential interpretation errors/pitfalls discussed for each case to identify the most common pitfalls. The most common pitfalls were the interpretation of low signal on the ADC map, small susceptibility artefacts, T2 shine-through effects, suboptimal sequence angulation and collapsed rectal wall. Diagnostic performance (area under the ROC curve) was 0.78 (R1) and 0.77 (R2) in the first 50 patients and 0.85 (R1) and 0.85 (R2) in the final 50 patients. Five main image interpretation pitfalls were identified and used for teaching and feedback. Both readers achieved a good diagnostic performance with an AUC of 0.85. • Fibrosis appears hypointense on an ADC map and should not be mistaken for tumour. • Susceptibility artefacts on rectal DWI are an important potential pitfall. • T2 shine-through on rectal DWI is an important potential pitfall. • These pitfalls are useful to teach non-experts how to interpret rectal DWI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 9 15%
Student > Master 8 14%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 51%
Psychology 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Linguistics 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 18 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2017.
All research outputs
#18,810,584
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#3,002
of 4,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,735
of 310,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#33
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,221 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,805 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.