ArticleBMC medical imaging2020
Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer: a diagnostic performance study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of colorectal cancer screening practices in Rhode Island, 2011-2021.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Low-osmolar contrast tagging in minimally cathartic CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening: an observational study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Observational
- Prognostic Significance of the Comprehensive Biomarker Analysis in Colorectal Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The shift of expenditure of medical service for diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer from 2005 to 2014: a hospital-based retrospective survey in Guangxi.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- CT and MR Imaging in Colorectal Carcinoma: A Tool for Diagnosis, Staging, Response Evaluation, and Follow-Up.South Asian journal of cancer · 2024Review
- Comparison of virtual and true non-contrast images from dual-layer spectral detector computed tomography (CT) in patients with colorectal cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Colon Cancer Screening Methods: 2023 Update.Cureus · 2023Review
- Article
- Optimal Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022Review
- Pre-colectomy location and TNM staging of colon cancer by the computed tomography colonography: a diagnostic performance study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonoscopy is the reference standard for the detection of colorectal cancer but it is an invasive technique and has the risk of bowel perforation and bleeding. Unlike colonoscopy, sedation is not required in computed tomography colonography and requires additional reassurance endoscopy. The objectives of the study were to compare the diagnostic performance of computed tomography colonography against colonoscopy for a diagnosis of colorectal cancer.
methodsData regarding any polyp ≥10 mm diameter (ø) and < 10 mm ø but suspicious polyps of computed tomography colonography (n = 318), colonoscopy (n = 318), and surgical pathology (n = 77) for symptomatic colorectal cancer patients were collected and analyzed. Lesion ulceration, extramural invasion, and/ or lesion shouldering was considered as a suspicious polyp. Beneficial scores for decision making of curative surgeries were evaluated for each modality. The cost of diagnosis of colorectal cancer was also evaluated.
resultsEither of diagnosis showed polyps ≥10 mm ø in 27 patients and polyps of 50 patients were < 10 mm ø but suspicious. Therefore, a total of 77 patients were subjected to surgery. With respect to surgical pathology, sensitivities for computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy were 0.961 and 0.831. For detection of ≥10 mm ø polyp, benefit score for computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy were 0-0.906 diagnostic confidence and 0.035-0.5 diagnostic confidence. For polyps, ≥ 10 mm ø but not too many large polyps, colonoscopy had the risk of underdiagnosis. For < 10 mm ø but suspicious polyps, < 0.6 mm ø and < 2.2 mm ⌀ polyps could not be detected by computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy, respectively. The computed tomographic colonography had less cost than colonoscopy (1345 ± 135 ¥/ patient vs. 1715 ± 241 ¥/ patient, p < 0.0001) for diagnosis of colorectal cancer.
conclusionComputed tomographic colonography would be a non-inferior alternative than colonoscopy for a diagnosis of colorectal cancer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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.