ArticleEuropean radiology2026
MRI versus histopathology in EMVI detection for rectal cancer: prognostic relevance and survival outcomes.
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 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.
- MRI assessment of extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer: a practical pictorial review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared to histopathology for detecting extramural venous invasion (EMVI) in rectal cancer, and to assess their prognostic value for long-term recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a prospective cohort of 150 patients with biopsy-confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma, EMVI was assessed via high-resolution 1.5-T MRI and histopathological examination. Interobserver agreement, clinical correlations, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).
resultsmrEMVI was detected in 52.7% of patients and showed good interobserver agreement (κ = 0.68). pEMVI was confirmed in 45.9% of surgical cases, with fair agreement with mrEMVI (κ = 0.40). mrEMVI was significantly associated with advanced tumor stage, larger tumor volume, synchronous metastases, and elevated CEA levels. mrEMVI positivity predicted poorer RFS (HR 5.22, p < 0.001) and OS (HR 3.40, p = 0.01), while pEMVI showed no significant prognostic value.
conclusionmrEMVI is a more reliable imaging biomarker strongly correlated with long-term oncologic events compared to histopathological EMVI. KEY POINTS: Question Reliable preoperative markers are lacking for accurate EMVI detection in rectal cancer, creating uncertainty in risk stratification and treatment decisions due to inconsistent MRI-pathology concordance. Findings mrEMVI showed strong prognostic value for recurrence and survival, whereas pEMVI did not, and MRI offered higher reliability and reproducibility than histopathology. Clinical relevance Identifying mrEMVI preoperatively enables more accurate risk stratification, helping clinicians tailor treatment intensity and potentially improve survival, while highlighting MRI as a more reliable tool than pathology for guiding management decisions in 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.