ReviewEuropean journal of medical research2015
Magnetic resonance imaging and endorectal ultrasound for diagnosis of rectal lesions.
Review in European journal of medical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neoadjuvant Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Current Status and Future Directions.Cancers · 2025Review
- Geriatric Approaches to Rectal Cancer: Moving Towards a Patient-Tailored Treatment Era.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Diagnostic Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) of the Luminal Gastrointestinal Tract.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- How to Study the Location and Size of Rectal Tumors That Are Candidates for Local Surgery: Rigid Rectoscopy, Magnetic Resonance, Endorectal Ultrasound or Colonoscopy? An Interobservational Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasonography in pelvic masses with bowel involvement.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Endoluminal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in assessment of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Colon Cancer Diagnosis Based on Machine Learning and Deep Learning: Modalities and Analysis Techniques.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- How We Treat Localized Rectal Cancer-An Institutional Paradigm for Total Neoadjuvant Therapy.Cancers · 2022Review
- Review
- Practical approach to linear endoscopic ultrasound examination of the rectum and anal canal.Endoscopy international open · 2022Review
- Watch and wait approach in rectal cancer: Current controversies and future directions.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Article
- MRI surveillance for the detection of local recurrence in rectal cancer after transanal endoscopic microsurgery.European radiology · 2017Article
- Restriction spectrum imaging: An evolving imaging biomarker in prostate MRI.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2017Review
- Radiological assessment of anal cancer: an overview and update.Infectious agents and cancer · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endorectal ultrasonography (ERUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allow exploring the morphology of the rectum in detail. Use of such data, especially assessment of the rectal wall, is an important tool for ascertaining the perianal fistula localization as well as stage of the cancer and planning it appropriate treatment, as stage T3 tumors are usually treated with neoadjuvant therapy, whereas T2 tumors are initially managed surgically. The only advantage of ERUS over MRI is the possibility of assessing T1 tumors that could be treated by transanal endoscopic microsurgery. However, MRI is better for visualizing most radiological prognostic features in rectal or anal cancer such as a circumferential resection margin less than 1 mm, T stage at T1-T2 or T3 tumors with extramural extension less than 5 mm, absence of extramural vascular invasion, N stage at N0/N1, and tumors located in the middle or upper third of the rectum. It can also evaluate the intersphincteric space or levator ani muscle involvement. Increased signal on diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and low apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values as well as an irregular contour and heterogeneous internal signal intensity seem to predict the involvement of pelvic lymphatic nodes better than their size alone. Computed tomography as well as other examination techniques, including digital rectal examination, contrast edema, recto- and colonoscopy, are less useful in staging of rectal cancer but still are very important screening tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.