ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
Imaging Assessment of the Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment in Rectal Cancer in Relation to Postoperative Pathological Outcomes.
Article in Current health sciences journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integration of Nanotechnology with ctDNA: New Advances for Monitoring Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveRectal cancer remains a global health challenge with significant morbidity and mortality. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is critical for downstaging tumors and improving surgical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in evaluating tumor response to NAT in rectal cancer patients, focusing on imaging accuracy and correlation with histopathological findings. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 201 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer who underwent NAT followed by surgery. Imaging evaluations were conducted pre-NAT and post-NAT using MRI or CT. Tumor responses were categorized into complete response, downstaging, stable disease, and upstaging. Statistical analyses included Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Z-tests to assess differences in imaging performance and concordance with pathological outcomes.
resultsBoth imaging modalities identified significant downstaging post-NAT, with CT demonstrating a higher sensitivity for detecting complete responses (12.5% vs. 6.61% for MRI) and better local staging accuracy. CT showed superior performance in systemic metastasis detection but had limitations in distinguishing fibrosis from residual tumors. Overall diagnostic accuracy was 42.29%, with MRI having a statistically significant edge in detecting favorable tumor responses (p=0.043). The combined use of CT and MRI provided complementary insights, enhancing clinical decision making.
conclusionsMRI excels in local tumor evaluation post-NAT, offering detailed imaging crucial for surgical planning and conservative strategies like "watch-and-wait" in complete responders. CT remains indispensable for systemic staging and metastasis detection. Integrating both modalities within a standardized protocol can optimize staging accuracy and treatment outcomes in rectal cancer.
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.