Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 236

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How Accurate is Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Restaging Rectal Cancer in Patients Receiving Preoperative Combined Chemoradiotherapy?

Chen, Chien-Chih, Lee, Rheun-Chuan, Lin, Jen-Kou, Wang, Ling-Wei, Yang, Shung-Haur·2005·Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: Preoperative combined chemoradiotherapy is currently the main neoadjuvant therapy used to treat locally advanced middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma. A restaging work-up with magnetic resonance imaging was hoped to provide information about the effects related to combined chemoradiotherapy. The goal was to evaluate the correlation between pathologically verified tumor stages and clinical stages predicted by magnetic resonance imaging after combined chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: Between August 2000 and June 2003, 50 patients with biopsy-proven middle and lower rectal adenocarcinoma, with initial stage T3-T4 or N+, M0, were recruited in this series. Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging was used to stage the tumor before and after combined chemoradiotherapy. A protocol of the standard external radiation dose and oral combined uracil and 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin was used. The results of magnetic resonance imaging restaging after combined chemoradiotherapy were correlated with the pathologic staging. RESULTS: The overall predictive accuracy in T stage was 52 percent, whereas overstaging and understaging occurred in 38 percent and 10 percent of patients, respectively. Most of the inaccurate T staging was a result of the overstaging of superficial tumors (T0-T2). In N stage, accurate staging was noted in 68 percent of all patients, whereas 24 percent were overstaged and 8 percent were understaged. CONCLUSION: In restaging irradiated tumors, magnetic resonance imaging had the accuracy of 52 percent in T stage and 68 percent in N stage. Poor agreement between post-combined chemoradiotherapy magnetic resonance imaging and pathologic staging was observed in both T (k = 0.017) and N (k = 0.031) stages. Most of the inaccuracy in both T and N stages was caused by overstaging. The problem with magnetic resonance imaging was believed to be that it could not completely differentiate fibrosis from viable residual tumors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10350-004-0851-1

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 236

Metadata

Authors
Chen, C.-C., Lee, R.-C., Lin, J.-K., Wang, L.-W., & Yang, S.-H.
Venue
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
Published
2005-04
Volume
48
Issue
4
Pages
722-728
ISSN
0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984393814
Cited by
236
References
1
FWCI
4.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How Accurate is Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Restaging Rectal Cancer in Patients Receiving Preoperative Combined Chemoradiotherapy? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10350-004-0851-1
The paper
Chen, C.-C., Lee, R.-C., Lin, J.-K., Wang, L.-W., & Yang, S.-H. (2005). How Accurate is Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Restaging Rectal Cancer in Patients Receiving Preoperative Combined Chemoradiotherapy? Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0851-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.