Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39838092›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2025

Evaluation of MRI characterisation of histopathologically matched lymph nodes and other mesorectal nodal structures in rectal cancer.

Miriam Kheira Rutegård, Malin Båtsman, Lennart Blomqvist, Martin Rutegård, Jan Axelsson, Wendy Wu, Ingrid Ljuslinder, Jörgen Rutegård, Richard Palmqvist, Fredrik Brännström and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. 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

11 authors.

Miriam Kheira RutegårdDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Diagnostic Radiology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. miriam.rutegard@umu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3510-2165
Malin BåtsmanDepartment of Medical Biosciences, Pathology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Lennart BlomqvistDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Martin RutegårdDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Surgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Jan AxelssonDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Wendy WuDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Ingrid LjuslinderDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Jörgen RutegårdDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Surgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Richard PalmqvistDepartment of Medical Biosciences, Pathology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Fredrik BrännströmDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Surgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Katrine RiklundDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Diagnostic Radiology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate current MRI-based criteria for malignancy in mesorectal nodal structures in rectal cancer.

methodMesorectal nodal structures identified on baseline MRI as lymph nodes were anatomically compared to their corresponding structures histopathologically, reported as lymph nodes, tumour deposits or extramural venous invasion. All anatomically matched nodal structures from patients with primary surgery and all malignant nodal structures from patients with neoadjuvant treatment were included. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to evaluate the morphological criteria irregular margin, round shape, heterogeneous signal and nodal size, as well as the combined 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus criteria, with histopathological nodal status as the gold standard.

resultsIn total, 458 matched nodal structures were included from 46 patients (mean age, 67.7 years ± 1.5 [SD], 27 men), of which 19 received neoadjuvant treatment. The strongest associations in the univariable model were found for short-axis diameter ≥ 5 mm (OR 21.43; 95% CI: 4.13-111.29, p < 0.001) and heterogeneous signal (OR 9.02; 95% CI: 1.33-61.08, p = 0.024). Only size remained significant in multivariable analysis (OR 12.32; 95% CI: 2.03-74.57, p = 0.006). When applying the ESGAR consensus criteria to create a binary classification of nodal status, the OR of malignant outcome for nodes with positive ESGAR was 8.23 (95% CI: 2.15-31.50, p = 0.002), with corresponding sensitivity and specificity of 54% and 85%, respectively.

conclusionThe results confirm the role of morphological and size criteria in predicting lymph node metastases. However, the current criteria might not be accurate enough for nodal staging. KEY POINTS: Question Pretreatment lymph node staging in rectal cancer is challenging, and the ESGAR consensus criteria are not fully validated. Findings Although the ESGAR criteria correlated with malignant outcomes, diagnostic performance in terms of particular sensitivity, but also specificity, was not high. Clinical relevance Accurate nodal staging in rectal cancer is crucial for individual treatment planning. However, this validation of the current ESGAR consensus criteria suggests that these should be used with caution.

Indexed as

Lymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMagnetic Resonance ImagingRectal NeoplasmsAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesExtranodal extensionsLymphatic metastasisMagnetic resonance imagingNeoplasm stagingRectal neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID39838092
PMCPMC12165870

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.