ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2025
Predictive Value of TRUS and CEUS Parameters for Lymph Node Metastasis in Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the predictive value of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) combined with qualitative and quantitative parameters of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for lymph node metastasis (LNM) in rectal cancer (RC). Patients and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed preoperative clinical data, qualitative and quantitative TRUS and CEUS parameters, and postoperative pathological data from 535 patients with RC confirmed by surgical pathology. Independent predictors of LNM were identified through univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analysis. Two predictive models were developed: one based on TRUS/CEUS parameters, and another combining ultrasonographic parameters with clinical indicators. Model calibration was evaluated using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and diagnostic performance was quantified via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: Multivariate analysis revealed ultrasonographic tumor (uT) stage(OR=1.751,P=0.042), ultrasonographic nodal (uN) stage (OR=2.279,P<0.001), peak intensity ratio(PI-ratio: OR=0.799,P<0.001), and slope ratio (S-ratio: OR=0.997,P=0.008) as independent predictors of LNM. When incorporating clinical indicators, the combined model identified uN stage (OR=2.351,P<0.001), PI-ratio (OR=0.784,P<0.001), PI-difference (OR=0.997,P=0.011), S-ratio (OR=1.046,P=0.048), CEA (OR=2.324,P<0.001), and CA199 (OR=3.020,P=0.003) as significant predictors. The US model demonstrated an AUC of 0.792 (95% CI: 0.755-0.829), while the combined model achieved superior performance with an AUC of 0.815 (95% CI: 0.780-0.850) (Z=-2.076, P=0.038). Both models showed satisfactory calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test: P>0.05). Conclusion: The predictive model constructed based on preoperative TRUS combined with CEUS quantitative parameters, along with its combined model incorporating clinical biomarkers (CEA, CA199), can effectively predict LNM in RC, providing a non-invasive and quantifiable preoperative assessment tool for clinical practice.
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.