ArticleLa Radiologia medica2010
Contrast-enhanced MRI and PET-CT in the evaluation of patients with suspected local recurrence of rectal carcinoma.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic and prognostic value of quantitativeAbdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- The added value of pelvic surveillance by MRI during postoperative follow-up of rectal cancer, with a focus on abbreviated MRI.European radiology · 2020Article
- Early detection of colorectal cancer recurrence in patients undergoing surgery with curative intent: current status and challenges.Journal of Cancer · 2014Review
- MR imaging of rectal cancer before and after chemoradiation therapy.La Radiologia medica · 2012Article
- Rectal cancer: 3D dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI; correlation with microvascular density and clinicopathological features.La Radiologia medica · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the role of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) in the assessment of local recurrence of rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsAmong 200 patients scheduled for CT follow-up, 60 (48 low risk; 12 high risk) were selected due to CT findings suspicious for or suggestive of local recurrence. Patients underwent contrast-enhanced MRI and PET-CT within 2 weeks. Biopsy was considered the gold standard in 39 cases and follow-up at 6 and 12 months in the remaining 21.
resultsLocal recurrence was confirmed by histology in 15 cases (7 low risk; 8 high risk) and was excluded in 21 cases by long-term follow-up and in 24 by histology. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and accuracy were 86.7%, 68.9%, 48.1%, 93.9% and 73.3% for contrast-enhanced MRI and 93.3%, 68.9%, 50%, 96.9% and 75% for PET-CT.
conclusionsContrast-enhanced MRI and PET-CT can help in the detection of local recurrence of rectal cancer, even though their roles in early detection remains debatable, as the value of these techniques in current surveillance protocols is still to be defined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20574705What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.