ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Added value and clinical impact of second-opinion subspecialist radiologist interpretations of baseline rectal MRI in patients with rectal cancer.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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.
- Impact of the 2023 FIGO staging revision on MRI diagnostic accuracy in FIGO 2009 stage I endometrial cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the completeness and discordance of outside rectal MRI initial staging reports compared to second-opinion reviews, and to assess the potential clinical impact of major discordance on treatment decisions in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of outside rectal MRI reviews submitted for second-opinion interpretation by subspecialized radiologists from June 2014-March 2020 was conducted. Outside and second review reports were compared side-by-side; cases with discordance (and those with major discordance, i.e., may alter treatment, particularly) were identified. Two colorectal surgeons, blinded to report origins, reviewed cases with major discordance to evaluate their theoretical impact on patient management and rated their confidence level of the reports on a five-point Likert scale (1=lowest confidence).
resultsIn 461 patients (median age, 57 years [IQR: 49-67]; 274 male), compared to outside reviews, second reviews demonstrated improved report completeness across tumor characteristics, local extent, and nodal/metastatic disease clinical staging categories. The largest reporting gaps were in tumor morphology (66.4%, 306/461 vs. 98.7%, 455/461) and extramural venous invasion (29.1%, 134/461 vs. 93.9%, 433/461). Overall, 53.8% (248/461) of cases showed discordance, with 56.5% (140/248) classified as major. In this subset, second reviews led to fewer cases with insufficient information, e.g., 18.6% (26/140) to 7.1% (10/140) for Surgeon 1, and changes in surgical planning in 38.1-46.3% (43/113 to 44/95) of patients. Surgeons rated reports from second reviews with higher confidence scores (median, 4 vs. 2-3, p < 0.001).
conclusionsSecond-opinion reviews may impact patient care and improve surgeons' confidence for treatment planning. KEY POINTS: Question Do subspecialist radiologist second-opinion reviews improve rectal MRI report completeness and affect treatment decisions in rectal adenocarcinoma staging? Findings While outside reviews often under-reported key imaging findings, second reviews improved report completeness, which led to increased confidence by our surgeons in treatment planning. Clinical relevance These findings underscore the value of expert interpretation and highlight the need for optimized MRI protocols and broader adoption of structured reporting in rectal cancer staging.
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.