Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38081200›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Oncology2024

MRI in addition to CT in patients scheduled for local therapy of colorectal liver metastases (CAMINO): an international, multicentre, prospective, diagnostic accuracy trial.

Burak Görgec, Ingrid S Hansen, Gunter Kemmerich, Trygve Syversveen, Mohammed Abu Hilal, Eric J T Belt, Koop Bosscha, Mark C Burgmans, Vincent C Cappendijk, Mathieu D'Hondt and 34 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Technological Advances in Pre-Operative Planning.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

44 authors at 19 institutions in 4 countries.

Burak GörgecDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ingrid S HansenDepartment of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; The Intervention Centre, Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Gunter KemmerichDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Trygve SyversveenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Mohammed Abu HilalDepartment of Surgery, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, Brescia, Italy.
Eric J T BeltDepartment of Surgery, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Koop BosschaDepartment of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands.
Mark C BurgmansDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Vincent C CappendijkDepartment of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands.
Mathieu D'HondtDepartment of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium.
Bjørn EdwinDepartment of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; The Intervention Centre, Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Arian R van ErkelDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Hugo A J GielkensDepartment of Radiology, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Dirk J GrünhagenDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Paul D GobardhanDepartment of Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Breda, Netherlands.
Henk H HartgrinkDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Karin HorsthuisDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Elisabeth G KlompenhouwerDepartment of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Niels F M KokDepartment of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Peter A M KintDepartment of Radiology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, Netherlands.
Koert KuhlmannDepartment of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Wouter K G LeclercqDepartment of Surgery, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, Netherlands.
Daan J LipsDepartment of Surgery, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Bart LutinDepartment of Radiology, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium.
Monique MaasDepartment of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Hendrik A MarsmanDepartment of Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Martijn MeijerinkDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Yannick MeyerDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Mario MoroneDepartment of Radiology, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, Brescia, Italy.
Jan PeringaDepartment of Radiology, OLVG, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jasper P SijberdenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Otto M van DeldenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Janneke E van den BerghDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Inge J S VanhooymissenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Maarten VermaasDepartment of Surgery, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den IJssel, Netherlands.
François E J A WillemssenDepartment of Radiology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Marcel G W DijkgraafDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health, Methodology, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Patrick M BossuytDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Rutger-Jan SwijnenburgDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Åsmund A FretlandDepartment of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; The Intervention Centre, Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Cornelis VerhoefDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Marc G BesselinkDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jaap StokerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: j.stoker@amsterdamumc.nl.
CAMINO Study Group
University of Amsterdam · NLOslo University Hospital · NOAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLAZ Groeninge · BEFondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero · ITJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis · NLLeiden University · NLMedisch Spectrum Twente · NLOLVG · NLOncode Institute · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLAlbert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis · NLDutch Cancer Society · NLIJsselland Ziekenhuis · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines are inconclusive on whether contrast-enhanced MRI using gadoxetic acid and diffusion-weighted imaging should be added routinely to CT in the investigation of patients with colorectal liver metastases who are scheduled for curative liver resection or thermal ablation, or both. Although contrast-enhanced MRI is reportedly superior than contrast-enhanced CT in the detection and characterisation of colorectal liver metastases, its effect on clinical patient management is unknown. We aimed to assess the clinical effect of an additional liver contrast-enhanced MRI on local treatment plan in patients with colorectal liver metastases amenable to local treatment, based on contrast-enhanced CT.

methodsWe did an international, multicentre, prospective, incremental diagnostic accuracy trial in 14 liver surgery centres in the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and Italy. Participants were aged 18 years or older with histological proof of colorectal cancer, a WHO performance status score of 0-4, and primary or recurrent colorectal liver metastases, who were scheduled for local therapy based on contrast-enhanced CT. All patients had contrast-enhanced CT and liver contrast-enhanced MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging and gadoxetic acid as a contrast agent before undergoing local therapy. The primary outcome was change in the local clinical treatment plan (decided by the individual clinics) on the basis of liver contrast-enhanced MRI findings, analysed in the intention-to-image population. The minimal clinically important difference in the proportion of patients who would have change in their local treatment plan due to an additional liver contrast-enhanced MRI was 10%. This study is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, NL8039.

findingsBetween Dec 17, 2019, and July 31, 2021, 325 patients with colorectal liver metastases were assessed for eligibility. 298 patients were enrolled and included in the intention-to-treat population, including 177 males (59%) and 121 females (41%) with planned local therapy based on contrast-enhanced CT. A change in the local treatment plan based on liver contrast-enhanced MRI findings was observed in 92 (31%; 95% CI 26-36) of 298 patients. Changes were made for 40 patients (13%) requiring more extensive local therapy, 11 patients (4%) requiring less extensive local therapy, and 34 patients (11%) in whom the indication for curative-intent local therapy was revoked, including 26 patients (9%) with too extensive disease and eight patients (3%) with benign lesions on liver contrast-enhanced MRI (confirmed by a median follow-up of 21·0 months [IQR 17·5-24·0]).

interpretationLiver contrast-enhanced MRI should be considered in all patients scheduled for local treatment for colorectal liver metastases on the basis of contrast-enhanced CT imaging.

fundingThe Dutch Cancer Society and Bayer AG - Pharmaceuticals.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsLiver NeoplasmsContrast MediaFemaleGadolinium DTPAHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProspective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaGadolinium DTPAgadolinium ethoxybenzyl DTPA

Identifiers

PMID38081200
OpenAlexW4389472558

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.