Promotional language in radiology publications: increasing use of "excellent", "favorable", "promising", "robust", and "unique".

PURPOSE: To investigate if radiology researchers are increasingly promoting their scientific findings by more frequently using positive words in their publications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included all articles that were published in 14 general radiology journals between 2003 and 2022. The title and abstract of each article were assessed for the presence of positive, negative, neutral, and random words, according to predefined sets of words for each category. Usage of positive, negative, neutral, and random words was calculated for each year and corrected for the total number of articles in each year. Temporal trends between 2002 and 2023 and the relationship between positive word usage and journal impact factor (IF) were assessed. RESULTS: Positive word usage (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.895, P< 0.001) and neutral word usage (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.463, P = 0.005) showed significant upward temporal trends. Negative word usage and random word usage did not show any significant temporal trends. Five positive words showed significantly increased usage over time and were present in more than 1 % of titles/abstracts in at least one year: "excellent" (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.800, P< 0.001), "favorable" (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.547, P< 0.001), "promising" (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.607, P< 0.001), "robust" (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.737, P< 0.001), and "unique" (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.747, P< 0.001). There was no significant association between positive word usage and journal IF. CONCLUSION: Radiology researchers appear to increasingly promote their scientific findings by more frequently using positive words in their publications over the past two decades. KEY POINTS: · Positive word usage in titles/abstracts has strongly increased between 2003-2022. · "Excellent", "favorable", "promising", "robust", and "unique" were most often used. · This trend occurred in all general radiology journals, regardless of impact factor.

Role of imaging in predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer.

With the proven overall benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer, there has come a need to discriminate responders from non-responders. In this article, the current role of anatomical and molecular imaging in the prediction of response to neoadjuvant therapy in gastric cancer is outlined and future prospects are discussed.

Imaging in assessing lymph node status in gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of lymph node status is of crucial importance for appropriate treatment planning and determining prognosis in patients with gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to systematically review the current role of imaging in assessing lymph node (LN) status in gastric cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases. The methodological quality and diagnostic performance of the included studies was assessed. RESULTS: Six abdominal ultrasonography (AUS) studies, 30 endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) studies, 10 multidetectorrow computed tomography (MDCT) studies, 3 conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, 4 (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) studies, and 1 FDG-PET/CT fusion study were included. In general, the included studies had moderate methodological quality. The sensitivity and specificity of AUS varied between 12.2% and 80.0% (median, 39.9%) and 56.3% and 100% (median, 81.8%). The sensitivity and specificity of EUS varied between 16.7% and 95.3% (median, 70.8%) and 48.4% and 100% (median, 84.6%). The sensitivity and specificity of MDCT varied between 62.5% and 91.9% (median, 80.0%) and 50.0% and 87.9% (median, 77.8%). The sensitivity and specificity of MRI varied between 54.6% and 85.3% (median, 68.8%) and 50.0% and 100% (median, 75.0%). The sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET varied between 33.3% and 64.6% (median, 34.3%) and 85.7% and 97.0% (median, 93.2%). The sensitivity and specificity of the FDG-PET/CT fusion study were 54.7% and 92.2%. For all the imaging modalities, there were no significant differences between the mean sensitivities and specificities of high- and low-quality studies. CONCLUSION: AUS, EUS, MDCT, conventional MRI, and FDG-PET cannot reliably be used to confirm or exclude the presence of LN metastasis. The performance of highresolution PET/CT fusion and functional MRI techniques still has to be determined.

Predicting lymph node status in early gastric cancer.

Accurate prediction of lymph node (LN) status is of crucial importance for appropriate treatment planning in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC). However, there is no definitive consensus yet on which patient and/or tumor characteristics are associated with LN metastasis. A systematic search for studies investigating the relationship between patient and/or tumor characteristics and LN metastasis in EGC was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE. Patient and/or tumor characteristics associated with LN metastasis were identified by meta-analyzing results of individual studies. Forty-five studies were included. Variables significantly associated with LN metastasis in gastric cancer limited to the mucosa were: age younger than 57 years, tumor location in the middle part of the stomach, larger tumor size, macroscopically depressed tumor type, tumor ulcerations, undifferentiated tumors, diffuse tumor type according to the Lauren classification, lymphatic tumor invasion, tumors with a proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) labeling index of more than 25%, and matrix metalloproteinase-9-positive tumors. Variables significantly associated with LN metastasis in gastric cancer limited to the submucosa were: female sex, tumor location in the lower part of the stomach, larger tumor size, undifferentiated tumors, increasing depth of submucosal invasion, lymphatic tumor invasion, vascular tumor invasion, increased submucosal vascularity, tumors with a PCNA labeling index of more than 25%, tumors with a gastric mucin phenotype, and vascular endothelial growth factor-C-positive tumors. We identified several variables associated with LN metastasis in EGC. These variables should be included in future research, in order to assess which of these variables remain as significant predictors of LN metastasis.

Imaging in local staging of gastric cancer: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been established as the diagnostic modality of choice in local (T) staging of gastric cancer. Multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are promising alternatives. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the performance of each of these imaging modalities. METHODS: A systematic search for relevant studies was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each study. Local staging performance of included studies was calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-two EUS studies, five MDCT studies, one combined EUS and MDCT study, and three MRI studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were of moderate methodological quality. Diagnostic accuracy of overall T staging for EUS, MDCT, and MRI varied between 65% to 92.1%, 77.1% to 88.9%, and 71.4% to 82.6%, respectively. Sensitivity for assessing serosal involvement for EUS, MDCT, and MRI varied between 77.8% to 100%, 82.8% to 100%, and 89.5% to 93.1%, respectively. Specificity for assessing serosal involvement for EUS, MDCT, and MRI varied between 67.9% to 100%, 80% to 96.8%, and 91.4% to 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: EUS, MDCT, and MRI achieve similar results in terms of diagnostic accuracy in T staging and in assessing serosal involvement. Most experience has been gained with EUS. Few MDCT studies and even fewer MRI studies are available. Thus, EUS remains the first-choice imaging modality in preoperative T staging of gastric cancer.