ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Multi-center and multi-reader comparison of abdominopelvic non-contrast and contrast-enhanced CT in the postoperative surveillance of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Due to the significant risk of recurrence, postoperative surveillance of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) is crucial. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is the standard imaging modality; however, repeated long-term examinations result in cumulative contrast and radiation exposure. Non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) offers a safer alternative; however, high-quality multi-center evidence comparing its diagnostic performance with that of CECT remains limited. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of abdominopelvic NCCT and CECT for detecting postoperative recurrence or metastasis in patients with GISTs. Methods: This retrospective multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) study was conducted using data from patients with GISTs who underwent radical resection between September 2011 and January 2023. Five radiologists (with 5-20 years of experience) blindly and independently reviewed NCCT and CECT datasets. Diagnostic accuracy was analyzed using R and Python, with subgroup analyses based on National Institutes of Health (NIH) risk stratification and lesion location. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Both NCCT and CECT demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy across both institutions [West China Hospital, Sichuan University (Institution I): area under the curve (AUC) 0.863 Conclusions: This multi-center MRMC study demonstrates that NCCT is a valuable alternative to CECT for postoperative GIST surveillance, particularly in patients requiring long-term follow-up or those with contraindications to contrast. NCCT has high specificity comparable to that of CECT, while mitigating the risks of cumulative contrast and radiation exposure; however, expert interpretation remains important for detecting small lesions due to its lower sensitivity.
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.