ArticleBJS open2022
MRI tumour regression grade in locally recurrent rectal cancer.
Article in BJS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating pelvic anatomy for exenteration: a clinical guide for radiologists.The British journal of radiology · 2026Review
- MRI-Based Radiomics to Predict Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Overcoming the Challenge: A Comprehensive Review of Neoadjuvant Treatment Resistance in Rectal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Review
- Correlation Between MRI and Histopathology in Assessing Treatment Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Prediction of pathological response and lymph node metastasis after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer through tumor and mesorectal MRI radiomic features.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Interpretation of Complete Tumor Response on MRI Following Chemoradiotherapy of Rectal Cancer: Inter-Reader Agreement and Associated Factors in Multi-Center Clinical Practice.Korean journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of an Objective MRI-Based Tumor Regression Grade (mrTRG) Score and a Subjective Likert Score for Assessing Treatment Response in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancers-A Retrospective Study.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2024Article
- Prognostic Value of Tumor Volume, Tumor Volume Reduction Rate and Magnetic Resonance Tumor Regression Grade in Rectal Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- MRI Tumor Regression Grade Combined with T2-Weighted Volumetry May Predict Histopathological Response in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy-A New Scoring System Proposal.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the agreement between magnetic resonance tumour regression grade (mrTRG) and pathological regression grade (pTRG) in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Also, the reproducibility of mrTRG was investigated.
methodsAll patients with LRRC who underwent a resection between 2010 and 2018 after treatment with induction chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation in whom a restaging MRI was available were retrospectively selected. All MRI scans were reassessed by two independent radiologists using the mrTRG, and the pTRG was reassessed by an independent pathologist. The interobserver agreement between the radiologists as well as between the radiologists and the pathologist was assessed with the weighted kappa test. A subanalysis was performed to evaluate the influence of the interval between imaging and surgery.
resultsOut of 313 patients with LRRC treated during the study interval, 124 patients were selected. Interobserver agreement between the radiologists was fair (k = 0.28) using a two-tier grading system (mrTRG 1-2 versus mrTRG 3-5). For the lead radiologist, agreement with pTRG was moderate (k = 0.52; 95 per cent c.i. 0.36 to 0.68) when comparing good (mrTRG 1-2 and Mandard 1-2) and intermediate/poor responders (mrTRG 3-5 and Mandard 3-5), and the agreement was fair between the other abdominal radiologist and pTRG (k = 0.39; 95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.56). A shorter interval (less than 7 weeks) between MRI and surgery resulted in an improved agreement (k = 0.69), compared with an interval more than 7 weeks (k = 0.340). For the lead radiologist, the positive predictive value for predicting good responders was 95 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 71 per cent to 99 per cent), whereas this was 56 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 44 per cent to 66 per cent) for the other radiologist.
conclusionThis study showed that, in LRRC, the reproducibility of mrTRG among radiologists is limited and the agreement of mrTRG with pTRG is low. However, a shorter interval between MRI and surgery seems to improve this agreement and, if assessed by a dedicated radiologist, mrTRG could predict good responders.
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.