Observational studyBJS open2025
Accuracy and variability of locoregional staging in T1 rectal cancer: nationwide multicentre cohort study.
Observational study in BJS open, 2025. 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.
- Early Rectal Cancer: Diagnostic Challenges and the Role of Endoscopic Intermuscular Dissection Within the Therapeutic Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Early rectal cancer: are we overstaging and overtreating?BJS open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
39 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate locoregional staging is critical in the management of T1 rectal cancer and guides organ-preserving strategies. Despite guideline recommendations, the real-world performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the use and accuracy of locoregional staging in T1 rectal cancer.
methodsRetrospective analysis was performed from a nationwide multicentre T1 colorectal cancer cohort (EpiT1 Consortium) between 2007 and 2018 with a 5-year follow-up. Locoregional staging methods included MRI and EUS. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with locoregional imaging. The accuracy of each technique and their combination for T and N staging was assessed.
resultsAmong 3161 patients with T1 colorectal cancer, 681 had rectal cancer, of which 424 (62.3%) underwent locoregional staging: 234 (55.2%) with MRI only, 131 (30.9%) with both MRI and EUS, and 59 (13.9%) with EUS only. Factors associated with imaging (MRI and EUS) included management at a referral centre (odds ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 5.7), tumour location in the low/middle rectum (odds ratio 3.2, 1.8 to 5.7), suspicion of invasive carcinoma at colonoscopy (odds ratio 2.4, 1.3 to 4.5), and high-risk histological features (odds ratio 3.7, 1.8 to 7.4). MRI accurately staged T in 28.3%, whereas EUS achieved an accuracy of 59% for T staging. Combining modalities overstaged 67.1% of tumours for T staging. N staging was detected with ≤ 16% sensitivity across all strategies; in the surgical group (MRI and/or EUS), overall accuracy was 78%.
conclusionLocoregional staging varied widely and was influenced by non-tumour-related factors. MRI and EUS showed modest accuracy, overstaging T, and low sensitivity for N. These findings highlight the need to improve pretreatment evaluation of T1 rectal cancer.
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.