Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28667480›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2017

MRI surveillance for the detection of local recurrence in rectal cancer after transanal endoscopic microsurgery.

Britt J P Hupkens, Monique Maas, Milou H Martens, Willem M L L G Deserno, Jeroen W A Leijtens, Patty J Nelemans, Frans C H Bakers, Doenja M J Lambregts, Geerard L Beets, Regina G H Beets-Tan

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Britt J P HupkensDepartment of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Monique MaasDepartment of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. moniquemaas@live.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7721-2341
Milou H MartensDepartment of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Willem M L L G DesernoDepartment of Radiology, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, The Netherlands.
Jeroen W A LeijtensDepartment of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, The Netherlands.
Patty J NelemansDepartment of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Frans C H BakersDepartment of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Doenja M J LambregtsDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Geerard L BeetsGROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Regina G H Beets-TanGROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLLaurentius Ziekenhuis · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate diagnostic performance of follow-up MRI for detection of local recurrence of rectal cancer after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM).

methodsBetween January 2006 and February 2014, 81 patients who underwent TEM were included. Two expert readers (R1 and R2), independently evaluated T2-weighted (T2W) MRI and diffusion-weighted (DWI) MRI for the detection of local recurrence, retrospectively, and recorded confidence on a five-point scale. Diagnostic performance of follow-up MRI was assessed using ROC-curve analysis and kappa statistics for the reproducibility between readers.

results293 MRIs were performed, 203 included DWI. 18 (22%) patients developed a local recurrence: luminal 11, nodal two and both five. Areas under the curve (AUCs) for local recurrence detection were 0.72 (R1) and 0.80 (R2) for T2W-MRI. For DWI, AUCs were 0.70 (R1) and 0.89 (R2). For nodal recurrence AUCs were 0.72 (R1) and 0.80 (R2) for T2W-MRI. Reproducibility was good for T2W-MRI (κ0.68 for luminal and κ0.71 for nodal recurrence) and moderate for DWI (κ0.57). AUCs and reproducibility for recurrence detection increased during follow-up.

conclusionsFollow-up with MRI after TEM for rectal cancer is feasible. Postoperative changes can be confusing at the first postoperative MRI, but during follow-up diagnostic performance and reproducibility increase. KEY POINTS: • Follow-up with MRI is feasible for follow-up after TEM for rectal cancer. • DWI-MRI is a useful addition to detect recurrences after TEM. • Postoperative changes can be confusing and can lead to underestimation of recurrence. • Appearance of intermediate signal at T2W-MRI is suspicious for recurrence. • Nodal staging remains challenging.

Indexed as

Transanal Endoscopic MicrosurgeryAdultAgedArea Under CurveFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMicrosurgeryMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingRectal NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveDiffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imagingFollow-upMagnetic resonance imagingRectal neoplasmsTransanal endoscopic microsurgery

Identifiers

PMID28667480
OpenAlexW2726200964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.