ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Direct Comparison of Full Protocol MRI and Modified Non-Contrast MRI in Determination of Cancer Origin in Female Genital Tract Cancers: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. 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.
- Elastofibroma Dorsi: Demographic, Clinical, and Radiological Assessment: A Retrospective Study.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Article
- Associations Between Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values and Histopathologic Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Study.International journal of breast cancer · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeCervical and endometrial cancers are among the most prevalent gynecologic malignancies, associated with high mortality and morbidity. Diagnostic challenges emerge when invasive gynecological cancers concurrently affect the lower uterine segment and cervix, complicating the identification of tumor origin. We aimed to evaluate and compare diagnostic performances of full protocol pelvic MRI and modified non-contrast pelvic MRI in determination of cancer origin in female genital tract cancers. We also compared performance of both protocol in characterization of genital tract cancers. MATERIAL AND
methodIn this retrospective cross-sectional study, pelvic MRIs of 273 female patients with histopathologically confirmed genital tract cancer were evaluated. All patients were evaluated by two independent radiologists, with diagnoses initially established using the abbreviated non-contrast T2-weighted MRI protocol and subsequently by the dynamic contrast-enhanced full MRI protocol (T2-weighted and DWI). Primary site and origin of tumor, largest tumor diameter, and depth of myometrial invasion were assessed. Inter-protocol agreement was evaluated by Cohen's kappa.
resultsBoth abbreviated and full pelvic MRI protocols demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for cervical (97.39%) and endometrial cancer (96.85-97.64%) when compared to histopathological evaluation as the gold standard. Similarly, sarcoma detection accuracies were identical (86.67%) between the two protocols. Near-perfect inter-protocol agreement for myometrial invasion (κ = 0.963), invasion degree (weighted κ = 0.964), cancer origin (κ = 0.994), and tumor site (κ = 0.912) further confirmed comparable diagnostic performance across protocols. Also, logistic regression analysis in both protocols revealed no significant predictors for accurate cancer origin classification.
conclusionBased on our study, modified MRI had substantial agreement with full protocol MRI in determination of cancer origin in female genital tract cancers, suggesting its potential as a valuable contrast-free alternative for clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41428046What 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.