Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40137989›Full record

ReviewRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025

[Postsurgical follow-up and long-term monitoring of colorectal cancer : Radiology as a key component].

K I Ringe, I Molwitz, A G Schreyer, J Wessling, L Grenacher, M S Juchems

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

K I RingeInstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland.
I MolwitzKlinik und Poliklinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
A G SchreyerInstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Brandenburg an der Havel-Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane, Hochstraße 29, 14770, Brandenburg, Deutschland.
J WesslingZentrum für Radiologie, Neuroradiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Clemenshospital Münster, Duesbergweg 24, 48153, Münster, Deutschland.
L GrenacherConradia Radiologie München, Augustenstraße 115, 80798, München, Deutschland.
M S JuchemsZentrum für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie Konstanz-Singen, GLKN - Klinikum Konstanz, Mainaustr. 35, 78464, Konstanz, Deutschland. markus.juchems@glkn.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

clinical/methodological issueColorectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors worldwide. Postsurgical follow-up and long-term monitoring are essential to detect local recurrence, metastases, or secondary tumors at an early stage. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL

methodsAccording to the current guideline on colorectal cancer, radiologic follow-up is primarily performed using a single computed tomography (CT) scan 3 months after completion of therapy. Annual chest X‑ray examinations within the first 5 years after completion of treatment can be employed, and, due to cost-effective availability, regular abdominal ultrasound is recommended. METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS: The German guideline on colorectal cancer is currently being revised. As the sensitivity of ultrasound is inferior to CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), thoracoabdominal CT will probably become crucial in follow-up care with the revised guideline, which would align with international recommendations. PERFORMANCE: CT is well suited for detecting local recurrence, as well as lung or liver metastases. MRI is used in assessing local cancer grades for treatment planning and monitoring. Structured reporting, stage- and guideline-based recommendations including follow-up intervals as well as interdisciplinary tumor conferences ensure high-quality follow-up care. ACHIEVEMENTS: Radiology is essential to interdisciplinary follow-up care for colorectal cancer. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Structured reporting and clear recommendations on follow-up intervals should be standard in radiological reports. The importance of radiological follow-up for patients with colorectal cancer is likely to increase further with the guideline that is currently being revised.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsDiagnostic ImagingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPostoperative CareFollow-Up StudiesGermanyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPractice Guidelines as TopicTomography, X-Ray ComputedAftercareColorectal neoplasmsComputed tomographyLong-term survivalPractice guideline

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.