ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Diagnostic and prognostic performance of MRI-based Node-RADS for regional lymph node assessment in treatment-naive 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Node-RADS for lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Reply to the Letter to the Editor: From detecting axillary metastasis to guiding clinically actionable axillary management in breast cancer.European radiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI-based Node Reporting and Data System (Node-RADS) in diagnosing lymph node metastasis (LNM) and to investigate its prognostic significance in rectal cancer (RC) patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with RC who underwent radical rectal resection (including LN dissection) without any prior anti-tumour therapy between May 2019 and April 2023 were retrospectively included. Two radiologists independently scored lymph nodes using the MRI-based Node-RADS. The diagnostic performance of Node-RADS was estimated using the area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC) and compared with size criteria and MRI reports conducted by experienced radiologists. Intra- and inter-observer agreement were both assessed. Disease-free survival (DFS), which served as a key postoperative prognostic indicator, was evaluated and compared between patients with low (1-3) and high (4-5) scores.
resultsOverall, 163 patients with RC were enrolled, including 53 with LNM. There were 98 men and 65 women with a mean age of 62.6 ± 10.1 years. Node-RADS showed a larger AUC (0.912) with higher sensitivity (81%) and specificity (97.3%) compared to size criteria (75.5% and 71.8%) and MRI reports (91.0% and 41.8%). Node-RADS scores were also evaluated and correlated with the prognosis in patients who had undergone radical rectal resection. A multivariable Cox model combining Node-RADS and extramural venous invasion (EMVI) showed good predictive performance for DFS (C-index: 0.718).
conclusionThe Node-RADS scoring system, based on MRI, enhanced both sensitivity and specificity in detecting LNM in RC patients who directly received radical rectal resection and showed potential prognostic significance for RCs. KEY POINTS: Question What is the clinical utility of the MRI-based Node-RADS for treatment-naive RC? Findings The MRI-based Node-RADS demonstrated better diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.912) for LNM and provided significant prognostic value for DFS in treatment-naive RC patients. Clinical relevance The MRI-based Node-RADS is a reliable diagnostic method for lymph node assessment in treatment-naive RC with higher sensitivity and specificity. It is also useful in predicting postoperative outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41609764What 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.