Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38001376›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2023

Results of a diagnostic imaging audit in a randomised clinical trial in rectal cancer highlight the importance of careful planning and quality control.

Ilaria Prata, Martina Eriksson, Jasenko Krdzalic, Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg, Annet G H Roodvoets, Regina Beets-Tan, Cornelis J H van de Velde, Boudewijn van Etten, Geke A P Hospers, Bengt Glimelius and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insights into imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01558921 (Randomized Multicentre Phase III Study of Short Course Radiation Therapy Followed by Prolonged Pre-operative Chemotherapy and Surgery in Primary High Risk Rectal Cancer Compared to Standard Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery and Optional Adjuvant Chemotherapy.), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

NCT01558921 phase3active not recruitingnot on this map

Randomized Multicentre Phase III Study of Short Course Radiation Therapy Followed by Prolonged Pre-operative Chemotherapy and Surgery in Primary High Risk Rectal Cancer Compared to Standard Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery and Optional Adjuvant Chemotherapy.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Medical Center GroningenRan2011 to 2026Enrolled920ConditionsRectal CancerArmsM1 scheme, standard long course chemoradiotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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

14 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Ilaria PrataDepartment of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. i.prata@nki.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1222-2386
Martina ErikssonDepartment of Radiology, Capio S:T Göran Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jasenko KrdzalicDepartment of Radiology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Geleen, the Netherlands.
Elma Meershoek-Klein KranenbargDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Annet G H RoodvoetsDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Regina Beets-TanDepartment of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Cornelis J H van de VeldeDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Boudewijn van EttenDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Geke A P HospersDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Bengt GlimeliusDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Per J NilssonDepartment of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Corrie A M MarijnenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Koen C M J PeetersDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Lennart K BlomqvistDepartment of Radiation Physics/Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLKarolinska University Hospital · SEThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLSaint Göran Hospital · SEUppsala University · SEZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions 857894
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMagnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the modality used for baseline assessment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and restaging after neoadjuvant treatment. The overall audited quality of MR imaging in large multicentre trials on rectal cancer is so far not routinely reported. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe collected MR images obtained within the Rectal Cancer And Pre-operative Induction Therapy Followed by Dedicated Operation (RAPIDO) trial and performed an audit of the technical features of image acquisition. The required MR sequences and slice thickness stated in the RAPIDO protocol were used as a reference.

resultsOut of 920 participants of the RAPIDO study, MR investigations of 668 and 623 patients in the baseline and restaging setting, respectively, were collected. Of these, 304/668 (45.5%) and 328/623 (52.6%) MR images, respectively, fulfilled the technical quality criteria. The main reason for non-compliance was exceeding slice thickness 238/668, 35.6% in the baseline setting and 162/623, 26.0% in the restaging setting. In 166/668, 24.9% and 168/623, 27.0% MR images in the baseline and restaging setting, respectively, one or more of the required pulse sequences were missing.

conclusionAltogether, 49.0% of the MR images obtained within the RAPIDO trial fulfilled the image acquisition criteria required in the study protocol. High-quality MR imaging should be expected for the appropriate initial treatment and response evaluation of patients with LARC, and efforts should be made to maximise the quality of imaging in clinical trials and in clinical practice. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This audit highlights the importance of adherence to MR image acquisition criteria for rectal cancer, both in multicentre trials and in daily clinical practice. High-resolution images allow correct staging, treatment stratification and evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment. KEY POINTS: - Complying to MR acquisition guidelines in multicentre trials is challenging. - Neglection on MR acquisition criteria leads to poor staging and treatment. - MR acquisition guidelines should be followed in trials and clinical practice. - Researchers should consider mandatory audits prior to study initiation.

Indexed as

AuditImage acquisition protocolMagnetic resonance imagingRectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID38001376
PMCPMC10673763
OpenAlexW4388966582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.