MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388797528 · doi:10.1007/s00330-023-10447-z

Split scar sign to predict complete response in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4388797528 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanni Brondani Torri, Camila Piovesan Wiethan, Felipe Welter Langer, Guilherme Strieder de Oliveira, Alice Villa Bella Meirelles, Natally Horvat, Justin R. Tse, Adriano Basso Dias, Stephan Altmayer

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Radiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteSociety of Memorial Sloan KetteringNational Institutes of HealthMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
KeywordsMedicineSSS*Neoadjuvant therapyMeta-analysisColorectal cancerMagnetic resonance imagingChemoradiotherapyRadiologyOdds ratioResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsDiagnostic odds ratioInternal medicineOncologyRadiation therapyCancerClinical trialBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the modality of choice for rectal cancer initial staging and restaging after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Our objective was to perform a meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of the split scar sign (SSS) on rectal MRI in predicting complete response after neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant published studies through June 2023. Primary studies met eligibility criteria if they evaluated the diagnostic performance of the SSS to predict complete response on pathology or clinical follow-up in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of the SSS. RESULTS: A total of 4 studies comprising 377 patients met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of complete response in the studies was 21.7-52.5%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the SSS to predict complete response were 62.0% (95% CI, 43.5-78.5%) and 91.9% (95% CI, 78.9-97.2%), respectively. The estimated AUC for SSS was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.56-0.94) with a DOR of 18.8 (95% CI, 3.65-96.5). CONCLUSION: The presence of SSS on rectal MRI demonstrated high specificity for complete response in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. This imaging pattern can be a valuable tool to identify potential candidates for organ-sparing treatment and surveillance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: SSS presents high specificity for complete response post-neoadjuvant. This MRI finding enhances rectal cancer treatment assessment and aids clinicians and patients in choosing watch-and-wait over immediate surgery, which can potentially reduce costs and associated morbidity. KEY POINTS: •Fifteen to 50% of rectal cancer patients achieve complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and may be eligible for a watch-and-wait strategy. •The split scar sign has high specificity for a complete response. •This imaging finding is valuable to select candidates for organ-sparing management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean RadiologySame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207