Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38730037›Full record

ArticleLa Radiologia medica2024

The performance of the node reporting and data system 1.0 (Node-RADS) and DWI-MRI in staging patients with cervical carcinoma according to the new FIGO classification (2018).

Roberta Valerieva Ninkova, Alessandro Calabrese, Federica Curti, Sandrine Riccardi, Marco Gennarini, Valentina Miceli, Angelica Cupertino, Violante Di Donato, Angelina Pernazza, Stefania Maria Rizzo and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in La Radiologia medica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Node-RADS in cervical cancer: a multi-reader agreement and diagnostic performance study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

13 authors.

Roberta Valerieva Ninkova *Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro CalabreseDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Federica CurtiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Sandrine RiccardiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Marco GennariniDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Valentina MiceliDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Angelica CupertinoDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Violante Di DonatoDepartment of Maternal and Child Health and Urological Sciences, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Angelina PernazzaDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Stefania Maria RizzoFaculty of Biomedical Sciences, University of Italian Switzerland (USI), Via Buffi 13, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland.
Valeria PanebiancoDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Carlo CatalanoDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Lucia Manganaro *Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy. lucia.manganaro@uniroma1.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9037-9904

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Node-RADS score and the utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in predicting metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) involvement in cervical cancer (CC) patients using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The applicability of the Node RADS score across three readers with different years of experience in pelvic imaging was also assessed. MATERIAL AND

methodsAmong 140 patients, 68 underwent staging MRI, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical surgery, forming the study cohort. Node-RADS scores of the main pelvic stations were retrospectively determined to assess LN metastatic likelihood and compared with the histological findings. Mean ADC, relative ADC (rADC), and correct ADC (cADC) values of LNs classified as Node-RADS ≥ 3 were measured and compared with histological reports, considered as gold standard.

resultsSensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPVs and NPVs), and accuracy were calculated for different Node-RADS thresholds. Node RADS ≥ 3 showed a sensitivity of 92.8% and specificity of 72.5%. Node RADS ≥ 4 yielded a sensitivity of 71.4% and specificity of 100%, while Node RADS 5 yielded 42.9% and 100%, respectively. The diagnostic performance of mean ADC, cADC and rADC values from 78 LNs with Node-RADS score ≥ 3 was assessed, with ADC demonstrating the highest area under the curve (AUC 0.820), compared to cADC and rADC values.

conclusionThe Node-RADS score provides a standardized LNs assessment, enhancing diagnostic accuracy in CC patients. Its ease of use and high inter-observer concordance support its clinical utility. ADC measurement of LNs shows promise as an additional tool for optimizing patient diagnostic evaluation.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingLymphatic MetastasisNeoplasm StagingSensitivity and SpecificityUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansLymph NodesMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesApparent diffusion coefficientLymph nodeMagnetic resonance imagingUterine cervical cancer

Identifiers

PMID38730037
PMCPMC11252186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.