ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Diagnostic accuracy of 1,000 endorectal ultrasounds before transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal neoplastic lesions.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Early Rectal Cancer: Diagnostic Challenges and the Role of Endoscopic Intermuscular Dissection Within the Therapeutic Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEndorectal ultrasound (EUS) is an essential tool for local staging of rectal neoplasia; however, its diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing non-invasive from invasive lesions before transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) remains a matter of debate.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 1,000 consecutive EUS examinations performed before TEM between 1993 and 2025 was conducted using a prospectively maintained database. EUS levels (0-3) were correlated with the final histopathological outcome. Lesions were categorised as non-invasive (LGD, HGD, Tis) or invasive (pT1-pT3). Diagnostic metrics-sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy-were calculated overall and across three chronological periods. Separate analyses were performed for post-neoadjuvant (ypT03) and post-endoscopic resection groups.
resultsAmong 883 evaluable EUS studies for the primary analysis (non-invasive vs invasive pT1-pT3), overall sensitivity was 86.4%, specificity 64.9%, PPV 81.5%, NPV 72.7%, and accuracy 78.7%. All indices improved over time, with accuracy rising from 62.9% in early cases to 73.9% in the most recent period. In the post-neoadjuvant group (n = 47), sensitivity remained high (89.7%), but specificity was low (33.3%), likely due to overstaging related to fibrosis. In the post-endoscopic resection group (n = 70), the apparent accuracy was 44.3%, suggesting a high rate of false-positive invasion predictions.
conclusionsEUS before TEM shows good overall accuracy and excellent reliability for excluding deep invasion, with progressive improvement over the past 3 decades. While overstaging remains a limitation in post-treatment and non-dysplastic lesions, EUS continues to play a pivotal role in selecting candidates for organ-preserving rectal surgery. In post-endoscopic resection scars and post-neoadjuvant rectum, EUS findings should be interpreted cautiously and integrated with MRI/endoscopic morphology.
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.