ArticleEuropean radiology2026
MR outperformed CT in evaluating RECIST response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 compare MRI and contrast-enhanced CT in assessing neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) response for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this prospective single-center study (July 2019-August 2024), 122 ESCC patients (cT2-T4a/N0-N3/M0; mean age 63.2 ± 7.0 years; 95 male) underwent pre-/post-NAT MRI and contrast-enhanced CT before esophagectomy. Two blinded radiologists independently evaluated treatment response on CT and MRI images using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and MR tumor regression grade (mrTRG). Postoperative pathologic TRG (pTRG) served as the reference standard. Categories included pathological complete response (pCR: pTRG0, n = 32) vs non-pCR (pTRG1-3, n = 90), and pathological good response (pGR: pTRG0-1, n = 48) vs non-pGR (pTRG2-3, n = 74). Imaging assessments were compared with pathological findings using χ
resultsCT demonstrated accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 63.9%, 25.0%, 77.8%, 28.6%, and 77.8%, respectively, in differentiating CR from non-CR, while MRI showed superior performance with respective values of 93.4%, 90.6%, 94.4%, 85.3%, and 96.6%. Cohen's kappa coefficient revealed high concordance between MRI findings and postoperative pathology in CR evaluation (κ = 0.834, p < 0.001), whereas CT showed no statistically significant agreement (κ = 0.029, p = 0.748). mrTRG had excellent correlation with pTRG (κ = 0.917 for CR/non-CR; κ = 0.710 for GR/non-GR, p < 0.001).
conclusionsMRI outperformed CT in post-NAT response evaluation using RECIST for locally advanced ESCC. The mrTRG system enables precise TRG stratification, suggesting MRI as the preferred imaging modality for RECIST implementation in ESCC management. KEY POINTS: Question Can RECIST be applied to CT or MRI, accurately assess NAT response in locally advanced ESCC, and which modality demonstrates superior performance? Findings MRI surpassed CT in discriminating complete response (CR) from non-CR using RECIST and provided a mrTRG system. Clinical relevance MRI-based RECIST evaluation, combined with the mrTRG, enables precise risk stratification and personalized treatment planning for locally advanced ESCC, with better clinical utility and pathological correlation compared to CT-based measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41251725What 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.