ArticleCureus2026
Determination of the Accuracy of Computed Tomography in Staging Primary Rectal Carcinoma and Lymph Node Spread Post Chemoradiation Therapy.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- The Diagnostic Value of Deep Learning for Multi-Classification of Rectal Cancer T Staging Based on Regional Attention.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in post-chemoradiation restaging of rectal carcinoma. The primary endpoints were T (tumor) and N (nodal) staging accuracy using surgical histopathology as the reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy was defined in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall concordance. A secondary objective was to assess the role of MDCT in detecting distant metastasis in correlation with intraoperative and available clinical findings. METHODOLOGY: A prospective analytical observational study was conducted in the Department of Radiodiagnosis at M. S. Ramaiah Hospitals, Bengaluru, from November 2018 to June 2020. Twenty-seven patients with biopsy-proven rectal carcinoma underwent CT imaging of the abdomen and pelvis following chemoradiation and before surgical resection. MDCT-based T (tumor), N (nodal), and M (metastasis) staging were compared with intraoperative assessments and histopathological results. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy.
resultsA total of 27 patients were analyzed, including 16 (59.3%) females and 11 (40.7%) males, with most aged 51-70 years. Bleeding per rectum was the most common symptom in 26 (96.3%) patients, followed by blood in stools in 24 (88.9%) and anemia in 21 (77.8%). Tumors were primarily located in the rectum among 21 (77.8%) patients, and were predominantly adenocarcinomas in 21 (77.8%) patients. Perirectal fat involvement was observed in 18 (66.7%) patients, and regional lymph node invasion in eight (29.6%).
conclusionMDCT is a reliable modality for staging rectal cancer, particularly for advanced stages (T3-T4), demonstrating high accuracy in assessing tumor extent, nodal involvement, and distant metastases. Its sensitivity for early-stage lesions remains lower than that of MRI, highlighting the complementary role of multimodal imaging in preoperative evaluation.
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.