ArticleBMC cancer2026
CT-based Node-RADS classification in the assessment of rectal cancer: diagnostic performance and postoperative prognostic stratification.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLymph node metastasis significantly impacts rectal cancer prognosis and treatment planning; yet, current imaging assessment methods lack standardization. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and postoperative prognostic implications of the Node Reporting and Data System (Node-RADS) 1.0 categories in the initial regional nodal assessment of rectal cancer.
methodsThis retrospective study included 188 consecutive patients with rectal cancer without preoperative treatment who underwent surgery between 2017 and 2024. Two radiologists evaluated regional lymph nodes according to the Node-RADS 1.0 criteria and assigned each patient the highest Node-RADS category on the basis of computed tomography (CT) images. Survival and recurrence data were retrospectively collected. Interobserver agreement was assessed by weighted kappa statistics. Diagnostic performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The Kaplan‒Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox regression were used to evaluate overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Subgroup analyses were performed according to the adjuvant therapy status.
resultsNode-RADS yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.847, a sensitivity of 71.9% and a specificity of 93.5%. Substantial interobserver agreement was observed in the Node-RADS categories assigned by the two readers (weighted κ = 0.748, 95% CI: 0.692-0.805). On the basis of the optimal cutoff value, patients were divided into low-risk Node-RADS (categories 1-3) and high-risk Node-RADS (categories 4-5) groups. During a median follow-up of 52.1 months, patients with Node-RADS categories 4-5 demonstrated poorer OS and RFS than did those with lower Node-RADS categories (both p < 0.001), and this survival difference remained significant in subgroups, regardless of the postoperative adjuvant therapy status (all p < 0.05). In the multivariable analysis, Node-RADS category 4-5 was significantly associated with both poor OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.58, 95% CI: 1.21-5.49, p = 0.014) and poor RFS (HR = 2.99, 95% CI: 1.35-6.61, p = 0.007).
conclusionsThe Node-RADS category during the primary staging of rectal cancer was a significant predictor of postsurgical patient outcomes, but prospective and multicentre validation is needed to confirm its clinical utility. Our findings suggest that CECT-based Node-RADS could serve as a valuable tool for risk stratification and treatment planning for patients with rectal cancer.
trial registrationThis was a retrospective study and did not require clinical trial registration.
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.