ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2024
Accuracy of Baseline Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Staging Rectal Cancer Patients Proceeding Directly to Surgery.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- MST-Net: a multi-scale spatial transformation network for automated T2/T3 staging of rectal cancer on preoperative T2-weighted MRI.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of CT, MRI, and ERUS in Preoperative T- and N-Staging of Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Article
- Deep Learning Algorithm to Determine the Presence of Rectal Cancer from Transrectal Ultrasound Images.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Multimodal Preoperative Management of Rectal Cancer: A Review of the Existing Guidelines.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Accuracy and variability of locoregional staging in T1 rectal cancer: nationwide multicentre cohort study.BJS open · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesHigh-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) accuracy for staging preoperative rectal cancer varies across studies. We examined MRI accuracy for T- and N-staging of rectal cancer compared with final histopathology of the resected specimen in a large Australian cohort who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy or radiation.
methodsRetrospective analysis of prospectively-collected clinical data from 153 rectal adenocarcinomas locally staged by high-resolution MRI between January 2012 and December 2019 that did not undergo chemoradiotherapy or radiation before surgery. T- and N-stage agreement between MRI and final histopathology was assessed using Kappa statistic. Agreement at each T-stage was evaluated using log-linear modeling. N-staging accuracy was examined using positive and negative predictive values.
resultsOverall agreement between MRI and final histopathology for T-stage and N-stage was 55% and 65%, respectively. Kappa statistic found higher agreement between MRI and final histopathology for T-staging (κ = 0.33) versus N-staging (κ = 0.18). MRI correctly assessed 91% of T1 tumors, 43% of T2 tumors, 65% of T3 tumors, and 80% of T4 tumors. MRI accuracy was higher for N-negative tumors (74.1%) than for N-positive tumors (44.4%).
conclusionMRI is moderately accurate at staging T1, T3, and T4 rectal tumors but caution when staging tumors as T2 is advised. Greater accuracy for staging N-negative versus N-positive tumors is indicated.
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.