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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- How publish-or-perish culture drives evidence fragmentation in oncology.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- ESTRO consensus guidelines on GTV delineation and dose-escalation in rectal cancer.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for rectal cancer: is it time to reassess the gold standard?Annals of coloproctology · 2026Article
- Mastering rectal cancer MRI: From foundational concepts to optimal staging.European journal of radiology · 2025Review
- A management of patients achieving clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy and perspectives: on locally advanced rectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.