Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37921924›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

Diagnostic performance of Node Reporting and Data System (Node-RADS) for regional lymph node staging of gastric cancer by CT.

Florian N Loch, Katharina Beyer, Martin E Kreis, Carsten Kamphues, Wael Rayya, Christian Schineis, Janosch Jahn, Moritz Tronser, Fabian H J Elsholtz, Bernd Hamm and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Node-RADS in cervical cancer: a multi-reader agreement and diagnostic performance study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Florian N LochDepartment of Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Katharina BeyerDepartment of Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Martin E KreisDepartment of Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Carsten KamphuesDepartment of Surgery, Parkklinik Weißensee, Schönstraße 80, 13086, Berlin, Germany.
Wael RayyaDepartment of Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Christian SchineisDepartment of Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Janosch JahnDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Moritz TronserDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Fabian H J ElsholtzDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Bernd HammDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany.
Rolf ReiterDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Germany. rolf.reiter@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9741-6736

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Digital Clinician Scientist Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDiagnostic performance of imaging for regional lymph node assessment in gastric cancer is still limited, and there is a lack of consensus on radiological evaluation. At the same time, there is an increasing demand for structured reporting using Reporting and Data Systems (RADS) to standardize oncological imaging. We aimed at investigating the diagnostic performance of Node-RADS compared to the use of various individual criteria for assessing regional lymph nodes in gastric cancer using histopathology as reference.

methodsIn this retrospective single-center study, consecutive 91 patients (median age, 66 years, range 33-91 years, 54 men) with CT scans and histologically proven gastric adenocarcinoma were assessed using Node-RADS assigning scores from 1 to 5 for the likelihood of regional lymph node metastases. Additionally, different Node-RADS criteria as well as subcategories of altered border contour (lobulated, spiculated, indistinct) were assessed individually. Sensitivity, specificity, and Youden's index were calculated for Node-RADS scores, and all criteria investigated. Interreader agreement was calculated using Cohen's kappa.

resultsAmong all criteria, best performance was found for Node-RADS scores ≥ 3 and ≥ 4 with a sensitivity/specificity/Youden's index of 56.8%/90.7%/0.48 and 48.6%/98.1%/0.47, respectively, both with substantial interreader agreement (κ = 0.73 and 0.67, p < 0.01). Among individual criteria, the best performance was found for short-axis diameter of 10 mm with sensitivity/specificity/Youden's index of 56.8%/87.0%/0.44 (κ = 0.65, p < 0.01).

conclusionThis study shows that structured reporting of combined size and configuration criteria of regional lymph nodes in gastric cancer slightly improves overall diagnostic performance compared to individual criteria including short-axis diameter alone. The results show an increase in specificity and unchanged sensitivity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The results of this study suggest that Node-RADS may be a suitable tool for structured reporting of regional lymph nodes in gastric cancer. KEY POINTS: • Assessment of lymph nodes in gastric cancer is still limited, and there is a lack of consensus on radiological evaluation. • Node-RADS in gastric cancer improves overall diagnostic performance compared to individual criteria including short-axis diameter. • Node-RADS may be a suitable tool for structured reporting of regional lymph nodes in gastric cancer.

Indexed as

Lymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesNeoplasm StagingSensitivity and SpecificityStomach NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRadiology Information SystemsRetrospective StudiesComputed tomographyGastrectomyGastric cancerLymphadenectomyLymph nodes

Identifiers

PMID37921924
PMCPMC11126430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.