ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
MRI is more accurate than FDG-PET in assessing complete response in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical utility and future directions of FDG-PET in rectal cancer management.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Review
- The Application of Combined PET/MRI in Staging and Response Assessment of Rectal Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe role of FDG-PET in the restaging rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is not clear. We compared the accuracy of FDG-PET and MRI in the assessment of rectal cancer response to NAT.
methodsData of patients treated between January 2015 and September 2022 were captured from a rectal tumor registry. Restaging FDG-PET and MRI were evaluated for the presence of viable tumor. Imaging was compared to the reference standard of pathological results for patients that underwent surgery, and sustained clinical complete response for patients that entered watch and wait. Sensitivity was defined as correctly identifying patients with a complete response.
resultsEighty-two patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 60 patients underwent restaging MRI and 54 underwent restaging FDG-PET. Thirty-two were evaluated by both modalities. Mean age and distance from anal verge were 59.9 ± 12.7 years and 5.9 ± 3.2 cm. Baseline staging was cT1-2, cT3 and cT4 for 7 (8.5%), 62 (75.6%) and 13 (15.9%) of the patients, respectively. Baseline nodal staging was cN0 and cN + for 32 (39%) and 50 (61%) of the patients, respectively. All patients were treated with radiation with the majority 73 (89%) receiving chemoradiotherapy. There were 17 patients (21%) that had a pathological or sustained clinical complete response. All baseline characteristics were not meaningfully different between groups. MRI was more accurate than FDG-PET in all parameters including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and overall accuracy.
conclusionMRI outperforms FDG-PET in the identification of complete response in rectal cancer patients after NAT.
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.