Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37099182›Full record

ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2023

A primer on rectal MRI in patients on watch-and-wait treatment for rectal cancer.

Marc J Gollub, James R Costello, Randy D Ernst, Sonia Lee, Ekta Maheshwari, Iva Petkovska, Ashish P Wasnik, Natally Horvat

Open access · greenAbstract 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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guidelines for localized rectal cancer (2025).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Marc J GollubDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. gollubm@mskcc.org.ORCID 0000-0002-6008-0730
James R CostelloDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Intervention, Motiff Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA.
Randy D ErnstDivision of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Abdominal Imaging, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Sonia LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Ekta MaheshwariDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Iva PetkovskaDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Ashish P WasnikDepartment of Radiology, University of MI-Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Natally HorvatDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Michigan · USUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · US

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

Total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) for rectal cancer is becoming an accepted treatment paradigm and is changing the landscape of this disease, wherein up to 50% of patients who undergo TNT are able to avoid surgery. This places new demands on the radiologist in terms of interpreting degrees of response to treatment. This primer summarizes the Watch-and-Wait approach and the role of imaging, with illustrative "atlas-like" examples as an educational guide for radiologists. We present a brief literature summary of the evolution of rectal cancer treatment, with a focus on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment of response. We also discuss recommended guidelines and standards. We outline the common TNT approach entering mainstream practice. A heuristic and algorithmic approach to MRI interpretation is also offered. To illustrate management and common scenarios, we arranged the illustrative figures as follows: (I) Clinical complete response (cCR) achieved at the immediate post-TNT "decision point" scan time; (II) cCR achieved at some point during surveillance, later than the first post-TNT MRI; (III) near clinical complete response (nCR); (IV) incomplete clinical response (iCR); (V) discordant findings between MRI and endoscopy where MRI is falsely positive, even at follow-up; (VI) discordant cases where MRI seems to be falsely positive but is proven truly positive on follow-up endoscopy; (VII) cases where MRI is falsely negative; (VIII) regrowth of tumor in the primary tumor bed; (IX) regrowth outside the primary tumor bed; and (X) challenging scenarios, i.e., mucinous cases. This primer is offered to achieve its intended goal of educating radiologists on how to interpret MRI in patients with rectal cancer undergoing treatment using a TNT-type treatment paradigm and a Watch-and-Wait approach.

Indexed as

Rectal NeoplasmsEndoscopy, GastrointestinalHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRectumTreatment OutcomeMagnetic resonance imagingNeoadjuvant therapyRectal cancerWatch and Wait

Identifiers

PMID37099182
PMCPMC11210452
OpenAlexW4367048059

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.