ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Detection of distant metastases in rectal cancer: contrast-enhanced CT vs whole body MRI.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiparametric MRI radiomics nomogram predicts synchronous distant metastasis in rectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with ultra-short echo time sequence versus fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in detecting gynecologic metastases.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2025Article
- The Clinical Value of the Combined Detection of Enhanced CT, MRI, CEA, and CA199 in the Diagnosis of Rectal Cancer.Journal of oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) including contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) and WB-DWI in rectal cancer initial staging.
methodsThis retrospective study was approved by the IRB and the requirement of informed consent was waived. From September 2013 to Feb 2015, patients who underwent rectal MRI including WB-MRI, as well as chest and abdominopelvic CT for initial staging, were included. WB-MRI consisted of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging and DWI covering neck to the pelvis. Three radiologists reviewed WB-MRI and CECT independently for the M-classification. The diagnostic performance of CECT and WB-MRI was compared using a reference standard incorporating histology, FDG-PET results, and clinical follow-up.
resultsA total of 139 patients (male:female = 89:50, mean age 63.2 ± 12.4 years) were included and metastasis was observed in 15.2% (21/139). WB-MRI showed significantly higher specificity (96.7% [114/118] vs. 85.6% [101/118], p = 0.001) and positive predictive value (PPV) (80% [16/20] vs. 48.5% [16/33], p < 0.001) than CECT. However, there were no significant differences in sensitivity (76.2% [16/21] for both, p > 0.99) and negative predictive value (95.3% [101/106] at CECT vs. 95.8% [114/119] at WB-MRI, p = 0.77) between CECT and WB-MRI.
conclusionsWB-MRI showed higher specificity and PPV than CECT in newly diagnosed rectal cancer. Adding WB-MRI to standard rectal MRI is a feasible option for initial staging workup of rectal cancer. KEY POINTS: • WB-MRI showed a higher specificity and PPV than those of CECT for identifying metastasis at initial staging workup of rectal cancer. • WB-MRI and CECT did not show a significant difference in sensitivity and NPV for the M-classification. • WB-MRI can be used as an alternative to CECT for the initial M-classification modality in newly diagnosed rectal cancer.
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.