ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Comparative accuracy of spectral computed tomography and conventional computed tomography in colorectal cancer staging.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate pre-treatment staging is essential for risk stratification and treatment planning in colorectal cancer (CRC). Spectral computed tomography (CT) provides energy-resolved reconstructions that may improve local and nodal assessment compared with conventional contrast-enhanced CT. Methods: This retrospective study included 340 adults with pathologically confirmed CRC who underwent spectral CT (n = 151) or conventional CT (n = 189) before definitive treatment between September 2023 and September 2025. The reference standard was postoperative histopathologic staging for resected cases or a composite standard incorporating biopsy, imaging, and clinical follow-up for non-surgical cases. Primary outcomes were overall TNM accuracy and component T, N, and M staging accuracy. Agreement was assessed using kappa statistics. Binary diagnostic performance was calculated for nodal metastasis and distant metastasis. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to account for potential residual confounding. Results: Spectral CT showed higher overall TNM accuracy than conventional CT (74.2% vs 63.0%, P = 0.028). It also demonstrated superior T-stage accuracy (74.2% vs 57.7%, P = 0.002) and N-stage accuracy (74.8% vs 64.0%, P = 0.032), whereas M-stage accuracy was similar (90.7% vs 91.0%, P = 0.930). Agreement with the reference standard was higher for spectral CT for overall TNM (weighted κ = 0.815 vs 0.795), T stage (0.759 vs 0.663), and N stage (0.599 vs 0.430). For M1 detection, spectral CT showed higher sensitivity (83.8% vs 72.2%) with slightly lower specificity (93.0% vs 95.4%). In adjusted analyses, spectral CT remained independently associated with correct overall TNM staging (adjusted odds ratio 1.91, 95% confidence interval 1.14-3.19, P = 0.014). Conclusions: Under standardized protocols, spectral CT demonstrated higher overall TNM staging accuracy than conventional CT, primarily through improved T and N classification, while M staging performance was comparable.
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.