Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37568760›Full record

ReviewCancers2023

Validated Pretreatment Prediction Models for Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients with Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Max D Tanaka, Barbara M Geubels, Brechtje A Grotenhuis, Corrie A M Marijnen, Femke P Peters, Stevie van der Mierden, Monique Maas, Alice M Couwenberg

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Max D TanakaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Barbara M GeubelsDepartment of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4318-6688
Brechtje A GrotenhuisDepartment of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Corrie A M MarijnenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Femke P PetersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Stevie van der MierdenScientific Information Service, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7080-1872
Monique MaasGROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7721-2341
Alice M CouwenbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLLeiden University · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pretreatment response prediction is crucial to select those patients with rectal cancer who will benefit from organ preservation strategies following (intensified) neoadjuvant therapy and to avoid unnecessary toxicity in those who will not. The combination of individual predictors in multivariable prediction models might improve predictive accuracy. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and critically appraise validated pretreatment prediction models (other than radiomics-based models or image-based deep learning models) for response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with rectal cancer and provide evidence-based recommendations for future research. MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase.com, and Scopus were searched for eligible studies published up to November 2022. A total of 5006 studies were screened and 16 were included for data extraction and risk of bias assessment using Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). All selected models were unique and grouped into five predictor categories: clinical, combined, genetics, metabolites, and pathology. Studies generally included patients with intermediate or advanced tumor stages who were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Evaluated outcomes were pathological complete response and pathological tumor response. All studies were considered to have a high risk of bias and none of the models were externally validated in an independent study. Discriminative performances, estimated with the area under the curve (AUC), ranged per predictor category from 0.60 to 0.70 (clinical), 0.78 to 0.81 (combined), 0.66 to 0.91 (genetics), 0.54 to 0.80 (metabolites), and 0.71 to 0.91 (pathology). Model calibration outcomes were reported in five studies. Two collagen feature-based models showed the best predictive performance (AUCs 0.83-0.91 and good calibration). In conclusion, some pretreatment models for response prediction in rectal cancer show encouraging predictive potential but, given the high risk of bias in these studies, their value should be evaluated in future, well-designed studies.

Indexed as

neoadjuvant therapyorgan preservationprediction modelsPROBASTrectal cancerresponse

Identifiers

PMID37568760
PMCPMC10417363
OpenAlexW4385555629

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.