ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2021
Diagnostic performance of
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- FDG-PET/MRI in colorectal cancer care: an updated systematic review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Pooled it
- Local recurrence in rectal cancer: from detection to structured reporting.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- The Application of Combined PET/MRI in Staging and Response Assessment of Rectal Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Radiotherapy volume delineation based on MRI andAbdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Impact of preoperative abdominal MRI staging on outcomes for stage II-III colon cancer: a propensity score-matched cohort study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- PET/MRI in colorectal and anal cancers: an update.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Review
- Local Recurrences in Rectal Cancer: MRI vs. CT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Rectal cancer pelvic recurrence: imaging patterns and key concepts to guide treatment planning.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Review
- Radiomic Features from Post-OperativeJournal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Surveillance strategies following curative resection and non-operative approach of rectal cancer: How and how long? Review of current recommendations.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the diagnostic performance of
methodsAll PET/MRIs of patients in the follow-up of rectal cancer performed between 2011 and 2018 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Recurrence was confirmed/excluded either by histopathology or imaging follow-up (> 4 months). Four groups of readers (groups 1/2: one radiologist each, groups 3/4: one radiologist/one nuclear medicine physician) independently interpreted MRI and PET/MRI. The likelihood of recurrence was scored on a 5-point-scale. Inter-reader agreement, sensitivity, specificity, PPV/NPV and accuracy were assessed. ROC curve analyses were performed.
resultsFourty-one PET/MRIs of 40 patients (mean 61 years ± 10.9; 11 women, 29 men) were included. Sensitivity of PET/MRI in detecting recurrence was 94%, specificity 88%, PPV/NPV 97% and 78%, accuracy 93%. Sensitivity of MRI was 88%, specificity 75%, PPV/NPV 94% and 60%, accuracy 85%. ROC curve analyses showed an AUC of 0.97 for PET/MRI and 0.92 for MRI, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.116). On MRI more cases were scored as equivocal (12% versus 5%). Inter-reader agreement was substantial for PET/MRI and MRI (0.723 and 0.656, respectively).
conclusion
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.