SynthesisEuropean radiology2024
Split scar sign to predict complete response in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiparametric MRI approach identifies pathologic complete response in patients with local advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- MRI's evolving role in rectal cancer in the era of personalized medicine.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Enhancing the role of MRI in rectal cancer: advances from staging to prognosis prediction.European radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the modality of choice for rectal cancer initial staging and restaging after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Our objective was to perform a meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of the split scar sign (SSS) on rectal MRI in predicting complete response after neoadjuvant therapy.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant published studies through June 2023. Primary studies met eligibility criteria if they evaluated the diagnostic performance of the SSS to predict complete response on pathology or clinical follow-up in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of the SSS.
resultsA total of 4 studies comprising 377 patients met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of complete response in the studies was 21.7-52.5%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the SSS to predict complete response were 62.0% (95% CI, 43.5-78.5%) and 91.9% (95% CI, 78.9-97.2%), respectively. The estimated AUC for SSS was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.56-0.94) with a DOR of 18.8 (95% CI, 3.65-96.5).
conclusionThe presence of SSS on rectal MRI demonstrated high specificity for complete response in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. This imaging pattern can be a valuable tool to identify potential candidates for organ-sparing treatment and surveillance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: SSS presents high specificity for complete response post-neoadjuvant. This MRI finding enhances rectal cancer treatment assessment and aids clinicians and patients in choosing watch-and-wait over immediate surgery, which can potentially reduce costs and associated morbidity. KEY POINTS: •Fifteen to 50% of rectal cancer patients achieve complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and may be eligible for a watch-and-wait strategy. •The split scar sign has high specificity for a complete response. •This imaging finding is valuable to select candidates for organ-sparing management.
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.