ArticleClinical imaging2022
Extracolonic findings at CT colonography in an oncological hospital setting and why they matter.
Article in Clinical imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- RADS ALPHABET: news and tips for young and general radiologists.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the frequency and clinical outcome of unknown extracolonic findings in patients with cancer who underwent CT colonography (CTC).
methodsConsecutive patients who underwent CTC from February 2000-April 2016 for any indication were retrospectively included. One radiologist blinded to clinical data determined C-RADS classification for all extracolonic findings on CTC reports as follows: E1: normal examination or anatomic variant, E2: clinically unimportant, E3: likely unimportant, incompletely characterized, and E4: potentially important. Another radiologist performed an unblinded review of medical records and determined if E4 findings were previously known or new, and classified new E4 findings as clinically important or unimportant on follow-up.
resultsOf 855 patients, 686/855 (80.2%) had a normal examination or clinically unimportant extracolonic findings (E1 and E2) and 169/855 (19.8%) had E3-E4 extracolonic findings [99/855 (11.6%) patients had known E4 findings and 102/855 (11.9%) patients had new E4 findings]. On follow-up, among new E4 findings, 71/855 (8.3%) patients had clinically important findings, 66/855 (7.7%) had a malignant outcome previously unknown by the referring physician, and 5/855 (0.6%) had other complications, including bowel obstruction and cirrhosis. Regarding new oncological findings, new extracolonic primary tumors were detected in 13/855 (1.5%) patients, corresponding to 12.7% (13/102) of the new E4 findings. The proportion of new E4 findings on CTC with and without intravenous contrast was not significantly different [41/320 (12.8%) vs 61/535 (11.4%), p = 0.612].
conclusionAmong oncological patients, detection of new significant E4 extracolonic findings at CTC occurred in 8.3% of all cases, including unknown cancers in 1.5%.
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.