Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 390

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diffusion-Weighted MRI for Selection of Complete Responders After Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study

Open access
Lambregts, Doenja M. J., Vandecaveye, Vincent, Barbaro, Brunella, Bakers, Frans C. H., Lambrecht, Maarten, Maas, Monique, Haustermans, Karin, Valentini, Vincenzo, Beets, Geerard L., Beets-Tan, Regina G. H.·2011·Annals of Surgical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: In 10-24% of patients with rectal cancer who are treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation, no residual tumor is found after surgery (ypT0). When accurately selected, these complete responders might be considered for less invasive treatments instead of standard surgery. So far, no imaging method has proven reliable. This study was designed to assess the accuracy of diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in addition to standard rectal MRI for selection of complete responders after chemoradiation. METHODS: A total of 120 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer from three university hospitals underwent chemoradiation followed by a restaging MRI (1.5T), consisting of standard T2W-MRI and DWI (b0-1000). Three independent readers first scored the standard MRI only for the likelihood of a complete response using a 5-point confidence score, after which the DWI images were added and the scoring was repeated. Histology (ypT0 vs. ypT1-4) was the standard reference. Diagnostic performance for selection of complete responders and interobserver agreement were compared for the two readings. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 120 patients had a complete response (ypT0). Areas under the ROC-curve for the three readers improved from 0.76, 0.68, and 0.58, using only standard MRI, to 0.8, 0.8, and 0.78 after addition of DWI (P = 0.39, 0.02, and 0.002). Sensitivity for selection of complete responders ranged from 0-40% on standard MRI versus 52-64% after addition of DWI. Specificity was equally high (89-98%) for both reading sessions. Interobserver agreement improved from κ 0.2-0.32 on standard MRI to 0.51-0.55 after addition of DWI. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of DWI to standard rectal MRI improves the selection of complete responders after chemoradiation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1245/s10434-011-1607-5

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 390

Metadata

Authors
Lambregts, D. M. J., Vandecaveye, V., Barbaro, B., Bakers, F. C. H., Lambrecht, M., Maas, M., Haustermans, K., Valentini, V., Beets, G. L., & Beets-Tan, R. G. H.
Venue
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published
2011-02-23
Volume
18
Issue
8
Pages
2224-2231
ISSN
  • 1068-9265 (ISSN-L)
  • 1534-4681
OpenAlex
W1978063955
Cited by
390
References
3
FWCI
24.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diffusion-Weighted MRI for Selection of Complete Responders After Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1245/s10434-011-1607-5
The paper
Lambregts, D. M. J., Vandecaveye, V., Barbaro, B., Bakers, F. C. H., Lambrecht, M., Maas, M., Haustermans, K., Valentini, V., Beets, G. L., & Beets-Tan, R. G. H. (2011). Diffusion-Weighted MRI for Selection of Complete Responders After Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study. Annals of Surgical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1607-5

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.