Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26609269›Full record

ArticleClujul medical (1957)2015

The accuracy of endorectal ultrasonography in rectal cancer staging.

Adrian Cote, Florin Graur, Andrei Lebovici, Emil Mois, Nadim Al Hajjar, Codruta Mare, Radu Badea, Cornel Iancu

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clujul medical (1957), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Adrian CoteIuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania ; Surgery Department, Prof. Dr. O. Fodor Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Florin GraurIuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania ; Surgery Department, Prof. Dr. O. Fodor Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Andrei LeboviciIuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania ; Radiology Department, Emergency County Hospital, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Emil MoisIuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania ; Surgery Department, Prof. Dr. O. Fodor Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Nadim Al HajjarIuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania ; Surgery Department, Prof. Dr. O. Fodor Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Codruta MareDepartment of Statistics-Forecasting-Mathematics, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Radu BadeaIuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania ; Ultrasonography Department, Prof. Dr. O. Fodor Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Cornel IancuIuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania ; Surgery Department, Prof. Dr. O. Fodor Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy · ROBabeș-Bolyai University · RO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe incidence of rectal cancer in the European Union is about 35% of the total colorectal cancer incidence. Staging rectal cancer is important for planning treatment. It is essential for the management of rectal cancer to have adequate preoperative imaging, because accurate staging can influence the therapeutic strategy, type of resection, and candidacy for neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this work is to evaluate the accuracy of endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) in rectal cancer staging.

methodsA retrospective study was performed to assess the accuracy of ERUS by analyzing patients discharged from Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (IRGH) Cluj-Napoca, Romania, diagnosed with rectal cancer between 01 January 2011 and 31 December 2013. Patients who were preoperatively staged by other imaging methods and those who had ERUS performed in another service were excluded from the analysis. As inclusion criteria remained ERUS performed for patients with rectal cancer in IRGH Cluj-Napoca where they were also operated. We analyzed preoperative T stage obtained by ERUS and it was compared with the histopathology findings.

resultsThe number of patients discharged with a diagnosis of rectal cancer were 200 (operated - 157) in 2011, 193 (operated - 151) in 2012, and 198 (operated - 142) in 2013. We analyzed a total of 51 cases diagnosed with rectal cancer who performed ERUS in IRGH Cluj-Napoca. The results according to the T stage obtained by ERUS and histopathology test were: Under-stage T2= 25.0%, T3=7.9% of cases;Over-stage T2=25.0%, T3=31.6% and T4=60.0% of cases.Less than 20% of patients underwent preoperative radio-chemotherapy.

conclusionsERUS is a method of staging rectal cancer which is human dependent. ERUS is less accurate for T staging of stenotic tumours, but the accuracy may still be within acceptable limits. Surgeons use ERUS to adopt a treatment protocol, knowing the risk of under-staging and over-staging of this method. The accuracy of ERUS is higher in diagnosing rectal cancer in stages T1, T2 and even in stage T3 with malignant tumor which is not occlusive. ERUS is less accurate for T staging of locally advanced and stenotic tumours.

Indexed as

neoplasm stagingrectal neoplasmsultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID26609269
PMCPMC4632895
OpenAlexW2115381355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.