Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36932225›Full record

ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2023

Imaging of Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Survey Results and Expert Opinion from the Rectal and Anal Cancer Disease-Focused Panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology.

Jennifer S Golia Pernicka, Gaiane M Rauch, Natalie Gangai, David D B Bates, Randy Ernst, Thomas A Hope, Natally Horvat, Shannon P Sheedy, Marc J Gollub

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. MR Imaging of Anal Cancer.Radiologic clinics of North America · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

9 authors.

Jennifer S Golia PernickaDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. goliapej@mskcc.org.ORCID 0000-0002-1076-7948
Gaiane M RauchDepartment of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Natalie GangaiDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
David D B BatesDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Randy ErnstDepartment of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Thomas A HopeDepartments of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Natally HorvatDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Shannon P SheedyDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Marc J GollubDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role and method of image-based staging of anal cancer has evolved with the rapid development of newer imaging modalities and the need to address the rising incidence of this rare cancer. In 2014, the European Society of Medical Oncology mandated pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for anal cancer and subsequently other societies such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network followed suit with similar recommendations. Nevertheless, great variability exists from center to center and even within individual centers. Notably, this is in stark contrast to the imaging of the anatomically nearby rectal cancer. As participating team members for this malignancy, we embarked on a comprehensive literature review of anal cancer imaging to understand the relative merits of these new technologies which developed after computed tomography (CT), e.g., MRI and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). The results of this literature review helped to inform our next stage: questionnaire development regarding the imaging of anal cancer. Next, we distributed the questionnaire to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Rectal and Anal Disease-Focused Panel, a group of abdominal radiologists with special interest, experience, and expertise in rectal and anal cancer, to provide expert radiologist opinion on the appropriate anal cancer imaging strategy. In our expert opinion survey, experts advocated the use of MRI in general (65% overall and 91-100% for primary staging clinical scenarios) and acknowledged the superiority of PET/CT for nodal assessment (52-56% agreement for using PET/CT in primary staging clinical scenarios compared to 30% for using MRI). We therefore support the use of MRI and PET and suggest further exploration of PET/MRI as an optimal combined evaluation. Our questionnaire responses emphasized the heterogeneity in imaging practice as performed at numerous academic cancer centers across the United States and underscore the need for further reconciliation and establishment of best imaging practice guidelines for optimized patient care in anal cancer.

Indexed as

Anus NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Squamous CellRadiologyFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm StagingPositron-Emission TomographyPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyFluorodeoxyglucose F18Anal cancerAnal squamous cell carcinomaComputed tomographyExpert opinionMagnetic resonance imagingPositron emission tomography/computed tomography

Identifiers

PMID36932225
PMCPMC10929685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.