ReviewInfectious agents and cancer2016
Radiological assessment of anal cancer: an overview and update.
Review in Infectious agents and cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiological assessment of secondary biliary tree lesions: an update.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Pooled it
- Review
- Comparison of the TNM9th and 8th editions for localized and locally advanced anal squamous cell carcinoma treated nonsurgically and proposal of a new stage grouping system.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Anal Cancer: The Past, Present and Future.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Review
- Additional Value of 2-[Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Complex Reconstruction with Flaps After Abdominoperineal Resection and Groin Dissection for Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Difficult Case Involving Many Specialities.The American journal of case reports · 2018Article
- Peribiliary liver metastases MR findings.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2017Article
- Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and 3D endoanal ultrasound in detection, staging and assessment post treatment, in anal cancer.Oncotarget · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anal cancer is uncommon neoplasm with an incidence of 2 new cases per 100,000 per year in the USA, accounting approximately 0.4 % of all tumors and 2.5 % of gastrointestinal malignancies. An early detection of the anal cancer is crucial for the patient management, whereas the diagnosis at an early stage allows conservative management with sphincter sparing, on the contrary a delays in diagnosis might lead to an advance cancer stage at presentation with worst survival. According to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Anal Carcinoma guidelines the patients should be subjected to a careful clinical examination, including a digital rectal examination (DRE), an anoscopic examination, and palpation of inguinal nodes. The guidelines recommended for the assessment of T stage, only a clinical examination, while the role of imaging techniques, as Magnetic Resonance imaging (MRI) is limited to the identification of regional nodes. Instead, the endoanal ultrasound (EAUS) is not recommended. This paper presents an overview and some updates about 3D EAUS and MRI in detection, staging and assessment post therapy of anal cancer patients.
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.