Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24695111›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2014

Prediction of nodal involvement in primary rectal carcinoma without invasion to pelvic structures: accuracy of preoperative CT, MR, and DWIBS assessments relative to histopathologic findings.

Jun Zhou, Songhua Zhan, Qiong Zhu, Hangjun Gong, Yidong Wang, Desheng Fan, Zhigang Gong, Yanwen Huang

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jun ZhouDepartment of Radiology, Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Songhua ZhanDepartment of Radiology, Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Qiong ZhuDepartment of Radiology, Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Hangjun GongDepartment of General Surgery, Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yidong WangDepartment of General Surgery, Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Desheng FanDepartment of Pathology, Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Zhigang GongDepartment of Radiology, Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yanwen HuangDepartment of Radiology, Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNShuguang Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the accuracy of preoperative computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) in the prediction of nodal involvement in primary rectal carcinoma patients in the absence of tumor invasion into pelvic structures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-two subjects with primary rectal cancer were preoperatively assessed by CT and MRI at 1.5 T with a phased-array coil. Preoperative lymph node staging with imaging modalities (CT, MRI, and DWIBS) were compared with the final histological findings.

resultsThe accuracy of CT, MRI, and DWIBS were 57.7%, 63.5%, and 40.4%. The accuracy of DWIBS with higher sensitivity and negative predictive value for evaluating primary rectal cancer patients was lower than that of CT and MRI. Nodal staging agreement between imaging and pathology was fairly strong for CT and MRI (Kappa value = 0.331 and 0.348, P<0.01) but was relatively weaker for DWIBS (Kappa value = 0.174, P<0.05). The accuracy was 57.7% and 59.6%, respectively, for CT and MRI when the lymph node border information was used as the criteria, and was 57.7% and 61.5%, respectively, for enhanced CT and MRI when the lymph node enhancement pattern was used as the criteria.

conclusionMRI is more accurate than CT in predicting nodal involvement in primary rectal carcinoma patients in the absence of tumor invasion into pelvic structures. DWIBS has a great diagnostic value in differentiating small malignant from benign lymph nodes.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingPelvic NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessPelvisRectal NeoplasmsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID24695111
PMCPMC3973633
OpenAlexW1993610342

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.