SynthesisEuropean radiology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of CT for identifying high-risk colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a model for predicting central lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer based on CT textural features and clinical indicators.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Development of a nomogram for predicting extramural venous invasion in colon cancer using spectral CT multiparameter imaging.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Rethinking lymphadenectomy in the immunotherapy era of colorectal cancer: A hypothesis-generating perspective.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Review
- Assessing the role of CT imaging in identifying candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in right colon cancer: a critical analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CT in differentiating high-risk from low-risk colon cancer, with a focus on staging parameters and the impact of CT slice thickness. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE and Embase.com was conducted from January 1, 2015, to September 24, 2024, to identify studies evaluating CT-based staging accuracy using histopathology as the reference standard. The QUADAS-2 tool assessed the risk of bias. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Subgroup analyses explored the influence of CT techniques, slice thickness, and study design on diagnostic performance.
resultsThe meta-analysis included forty-four studies. CT demonstrated 83% sensitivity (95% CI, 79-86%) and 70% specificity (95% CI, 66-74%) for detecting pT3-T4 tumors (DOR: 10.0). For pT3cd-T4 (> 5 mm muscularis propria invasion), sensitivity was 67% (61-73%), specificity 88% (83-92%) and DOR 13.7 (9.0-21.0). Detection of pN+ yielded 64% sensitivity (60-68%), 67% specificity (62-72%) and DOR of 3.5 (3.0-4.2). Sensitivity for extramural venous invasion (EMVI+) was 49% (41-56%), with 77% specificity (67-84%) and DOR 3.0 (2.0-4.4). Studies with < 5 mm slice thickness showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity. High I² values indicated substantial heterogeneity across studies.
conclusionCT demonstrates high sensitivity for detecting T3-T4 colon cancer but moderate sensitivity for nodal involvement and EMVI+. Diagnostic performance varies with technical factors, emphasizing the need for standardized imaging protocols and supplementary diagnostic tools to improve colon cancer staging. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42022374615. KEY POINTS: Question Accurate CT staging is crucial for guiding neoadjuvant therapy in colon cancer, but its ability to distinguish high-risk from low-risk cases remains uncertain. Findings CT showed high sensitivity for distinguishing pT3-T4 tumors but only moderate sensitivity for pT3cd-T4, nodal involvement, and extramural venous invasion. Clinical relevance This systematic review critically evaluates CT diagnostic accuracy in colon cancer staging, revealing its strengths and limitations. The findings highlight the need for optimized imaging protocols and complementary tools to enhance risk stratification and guide clinical decisions.
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.