ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Comparison between pelvic MRI, CT, and PET/CT in baseline staging and radiation planning of anal squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic and Therapeutic Impact of FDG-PET/CT Following MRI Staging in Anal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2026Pooled it
- MR Imaging of Anal Cancer.Radiologic clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the differences in baseline staging of anal squamous cell carcinoma based on CT, MRI, and PET/CT, and the resultant impact on the radiation plan.
methodsThis retrospective study included consecutive patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent baseline pelvic MRI, CT, and PET/CT (all examinations within 3 weeks of each other) from January 2010 to April 2020. CTs, MRIs, and PET/CTs were re-interpreted by three separate radiologists. Several imaging features were assessed; tumor stage was determined based on the eight edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual; and T (tumor), N (node), and M (metastasis) categories were determined based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Radiologist assessments were then randomly presented to a radiation oncologist who formulated the radiation plan in a blinded fashion.
resultsAcross 28 patients (median age, 62 years [range, 31-78], T-category classification was significantly different on PET/CT compared to MRI and CT (p = 0.037 and 0.031, respectively). PET/CT staged a higher proportion of patients with T1/T2 disease (16/28, 57%) compared to MRI (11/28, 39%) and CT (10/28, 36%). MRI staged a higher proportion of patients with T3/T4 disease (14/28, 50%) compared to CT (12/28, 43%) and PET/CT (11/28, 39%). However, there was no significant difference between the three imaging modalities in terms of either N-category, AJCC staging, or NCCN TNM group classification, or in treatment planning.
conclusionOur exploratory study showed that MRI demonstrated a higher proportion of T3/T4 tumors, while PET/CT demonstrated more T1/T2 tumors; however, MRI, CT, and PET/CT did not show any significant differences in AJCC and TNM group categories, nor was there any significant difference in treatment doses between them when assessed independently by an experienced radiation oncologist.
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.