ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
The role of routine imaging in identifying endoluminal colorectal pathology, a United Kingdom clinical experience.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeColorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death, and timely and accurate recognition of endoluminal pathology is crucial. While CT colonography (CTC) is validated for luminal assessment with a sensitivity concordant to endoscopy, most radiology referrals to the tumor board are based on unprepared CT abdominal studies without bowel preparation or fecal tagging. The diagnostic yield of these routine unprepared CT scans and the influence of radiologist subspecialty, remain uncertain. This study evaluated the positive predictive value of CTC and unprepared CT for suspected endoluminal pathology and examined the impact of gastrointestinal (GI) subspeciality reporting.
methodsWe reviewed colorectal tumor board outcomes from 2022 at St George's Hospital, London, United Kingdom. Patients referred to the tumor board by radiology were identified and analyzed through patient records. Radiological and endoscopic concordance was assessed using composite endpoints.
resultsOf the 106 radiology-initiated referrals to the tumor board in 2022, 61 (58%) were for suspected endoluminal pathology. Overall positive predictive value (PPV) was 79% (42 true positives and 11 false positives). The PPV was 91% for CTC and 70% for unprepared CT. GI subspecialist reporters identified 44% more endoluminal lesions on unprepared CT than non-specialist reports (p < 0.0001), but without a significant difference in PPV (67% vs. 78%, p = 0.543). No significant difference in colorectal cancer detection was observed between CTC and unprepared CT (p = 0.8).
conclusionUnprepared CT demonstrates a good PPV (70%) for detecting endoluminal pathology, with over half of identified lesions being malignant. Although PPV is comparable between GI and non-GI radiologists, GI subspecialists refer significantly more cases for further evaluation, emphasizing the importance of subspeciality expertise. Radiologists should confidently raise suspicion of endoluminal pathology to ensure timely referral for direct visualization and tumor board discussion.
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.