ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Contrast-enhanced vs T2-weighted MRI for mesorectal nodal staging in 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the diagnostic performance of the "Avocado Sign", a contrast-enhanced MRI feature, with T2-weighted morphological criteria for predicting mesorectal lymph node involvement in rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective single-centre study included 120 consecutive patients with histopathologically confirmed rectal cancer who underwent 3-T pelvic MRI between January 2020 and May 2025. Two blinded abdominal radiologists independently assessed the Avocado Sign on fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images and, in a separate session, T2-weighted morphological features for all mesorectal lymph nodes. The reference standard was total mesorectal excision histopathology. Performance was evaluated against European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus criteria, literature-derived criteria, and a cross-validated cohort-optimised T2 parameter combination. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared using DeLong tests.
resultsIn total, 120 patients (89 men, 31 women; median age 65 years [IQR 58-73]) were evaluated. Mesorectal nodal metastases were confirmed in 56 (46.7%) patients. The Avocado Sign achieved an AUC of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-0.96), with sensitivity of 94.6% (53/56) and specificity of 87.5% (56/64). It significantly outperformed the ESGAR consensus criteria (AUC 0.72; 95% CI: 0.64-0.81; p < 0.001) and the cohort-optimised T2 parameter combination (apparent AUC 0.81, cross-validated AUC 0.79; p = 0.02). All literature-derived T2 criteria demonstrated lower performance (AUC 0.58-0.78).
conclusionThe contrast-enhanced Avocado Sign provided superior discrimination of mesorectal nodal status compared with comprehensive T2-weighted MRI criteria, supporting routine inclusion of fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced T1-weighted sequences in rectal cancer staging protocols. KEY POINTS: QuestionCan contrast-enhanced MRI improve mesorectal lymph node staging accuracy compared with established T2-weighted morphological criteria in patients with rectal cancer? FindingsThe Avocado Sign demonstrated significantly superior diagnostic performance (area under the curve 0.91) compared with European consensus criteria (0.72) and all tested T2-weighted approaches. Clinical relevanceIncorporating contrast-enhanced sequences into rectal MRI protocols substantially improves nodal staging accuracy, supporting refined treatment selection for neoadjuvant therapy and organ-preservation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41999401What 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.