Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27048534›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2016

Appearances of screen-detected versus symptomatic colorectal cancers at CT colonography.

Andrew A Plumb, Fiona Pathiraja, Claire Nickerson, Katherine Wooldrage, David Burling, Stuart A Taylor, Wendy S Atkin, Steve Halligan

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. A high serum-free fatty acid level is associated with cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2020
    Article
  3. Staging with computed tomography of patients with colon cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew A PlumbCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Fiona PathirajaCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Claire NickersonPublic Health England, Fulwood House, Sheffield, UK.
Katherine WooldrageDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
David BurlingIntestinal Imaging Centre, St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK.
Stuart A TaylorCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Wendy S AtkinDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Steve HalliganCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK. s.halligan@ucl.ac.uk.
University College London · GBImperial College London · GBPublic Health England · GBSt Mark's Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16894Department of Health 02/02/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the morphology, radiological stage, conspicuity, and computer-assisted detection (CAD) characteristics of colorectal cancers (CRC) detected by computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in screening and symptomatic populations.

methodsTwo radiologists independently analyzed CTC images from 133 patients diagnosed with CRC in (a) two randomized trials of symptomatic patients (35 patients with 36 tumours) and (b) a screening program using fecal occult blood testing (FOBt; 98 patients with 100 tumours), measuring tumour length, volume, morphology, radiological stage, and subjective conspicuity. A commercial CAD package was applied to both datasets. We compared CTC characteristics between screening and symptomatic populations with multivariable regression.

resultsScreen-detected CRC were significantly smaller (mean 3.0 vs 4.3 cm, p < 0.001), of lower volume (median 9.1 vs 23.2 cm

conclusionsScreen-detected CRC are significantly smaller, more frequently polypoid, subjectively less conspicuous, and less likely to be identified by CAD than those in symptomatic patients. KEY POINTS: • Screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRC) are significantly smaller than symptomatic CRC. • Screening cases are significantly less conspicuous to radiologists than symptomatic tumours. • Screen-detected CRC have different morphology compared to symptomatic tumours (more polypoid, fewer annular). • A commercial computer-aided detection (CAD) system was significantly less likely to note screen-detected CRC.

Indexed as

AgedColonic NeoplasmsColonography, Computed TomographicEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicNeoplasm StagingObserver VariationOccult BloodProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRectal NeoplasmsColorectal neoplasmsComputer-assisted diagnosisCT colonographyMass screeningOccult blood

Identifiers

PMID27048534
PMCPMC5101282
OpenAlexW2335651319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.