Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26993649›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2017

CT colonography for surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy.

François Porté, Mallikarjuna Uppara, George Malietzis, Omar Faiz, Steve Halligan, Thanos Athanasiou, David Burling

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer Using CT Colonography.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2017
    Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

François PortéDepartment of Radiology, St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK.
Mallikarjuna UpparaSurgical Epidemiology, Trials and Outcome Centre (SETOC) St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK.
George MalietzisSurgical Epidemiology, Trials and Outcome Centre (SETOC) St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK.
Omar FaizSurgical Epidemiology, Trials and Outcome Centre (SETOC) St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK.
Steve HalliganDepartment of Radiology, University College London, London, UK.
Thanos AthanasiouDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
David BurlingDepartment of Radiology, St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK. dburling@nhs.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo review primary research evidence investigating performance of CT colonography for colorectal cancer surveillance. The financial impact of using CT colonography for surveillance was also estimated.

methodsWe identified primary studies of CT colonography for surveillance of colorectal cancer patients. A summary ROC curve was constructed. Inter-study heterogeneity was explored using the I2 value. Financial impact was estimated for a theoretical cohort of patients, based on Cancer Research UK statistics.

resultsSeven studies provided data on 880 patients. Five of seven studies (765 patients) were included for qualitative analysis. Sensitivity of CT colonography for detection of anastomotic recurrence was 95 % (95 % CI 62 - 100), specificity 100 % (95 % CI 75 - 100) and sensitivity for metachronous cancers was 100 %. No statistical heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 0 %). We estimated that CT colonography as a 'single test' alternative to colonoscopy and standard CT for surveillance would potentially save €20,785,232 (£14,803,404) for an annual cohort of UK patients.

conclusionCT colonography compares favourably to colonoscopy for detection of anastomotic recurrence and metachronous colorectal cancer, and appears financially beneficial. These findings should be considered alongside limitations of small patient numbers and high clinical heterogeneity between studies. KEY POINTS: • CT colonography compares favourably to colonoscopy/standard CT for colorectal cancer surveillance. • CT colonography offers single-test luminal, serosal and extra-colonic assessment. • CT colonography is a potentially cost-saving alternative to standard surveillance protocols.

Indexed as

Colonography, Computed TomographicColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansROC CurveColonoscopyColorectal cancerCT colonographyImagingSurveillance

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.