ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Evaluation of MRI characterisation of histopathologically matched lymph nodes and other mesorectal nodal structures in rectal cancer.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Node-RADS for lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Dual-Layer Spectral CT for Locoregional Assessment of Rectal Cancer: A Comparison with MRI in a Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Contrast-enhanced vs T2-weighted MRI for mesorectal nodal staging in rectal cancer.European radiology · 2026Article
- Tumor deposits on MRI in rectal cancer-detection and differentiation from lymph nodes with histopathological correlation.European radiology · 2026Article
- Rectal cancer MRI: if you use the correct spin, patient care will be win-win.European radiology · 2026Article
- MRI to guide clinical management of rectal cancer: updated consensus recommendations from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR)-PART I primary staging.European radiology · 2026Article
- A head-to-head comparison of MRI and CT using Node-RADS for rectal cancer lymph nodes: Observer agreement and diagnostic performance.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Lymph node morphology as an MRI biomarker for microsatellite instability in rectal cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Observational
- MRI-Based Differentiation of Tumor Deposits and Lymph Node Metastases in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Performance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.