Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32423413›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2020

Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer: a diagnostic performance study.

Junping Sha, Jun Chen, Xuguang Lv, Shaoxin Liu, Ruihong Chen, Zhibing Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Optimal Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022
    Review
  10. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Junping ShaDepartment of Radiology, Xiantao First People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangtze University, Xiantao, 433000, Hubei, China.
Jun ChenDepartment of Radiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, Hubei, China.
Xuguang LvDepartment of Radiology, Xiantao First People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangtze University, Xiantao, 433000, Hubei, China.
Shaoxin LiuDepartment of Radiology, Xiantao First People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangtze University, Xiantao, 433000, Hubei, China.
Ruihong ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Xiantao First People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangtze University, Xiantao, 433000, Hubei, China.
Zhibing ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Xiantao First People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangtze University, Xiantao, 433000, Hubei, China. 18064114812@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3477-1327
Yangtze University · CNWuhan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AgedClinical Decision-MakingColonography, Computed TomographicColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityColonoscopyColorectal cancerComputed tomographic colonographySurgical pathologySuspicious polyps

Identifiers

PMID32423413
PMCPMC7236500
OpenAlexW3027668576

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.