Magnetic resonance colonography vs computed tomography colonography for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: an indirect comparison

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Purkayastha ◽  
T. Athanasiou ◽  
P. P. Tekkis ◽  
V. Constantinides ◽  
J. Teare ◽  
...  
Medicine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 97 (22) ◽  
pp. e10883
Author(s):  
Shuangyan Sun ◽  
Changliang Yang ◽  
Zhicheng Huang ◽  
Wen Jiang ◽  
Yan Liu ◽  
...  

Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 98 (39) ◽  
pp. e17187
Author(s):  
Yanjun Gao ◽  
Jing Wang ◽  
Hairong Lv ◽  
Yongjie Xue ◽  
Rongrong Jia ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (01) ◽  
pp. 087-095
Author(s):  
Ingrid Chaves de Souza Borges ◽  
Natália Costa Resende Cunha ◽  
Amanda Marsiaj Rassi ◽  
Marcela Garcia de Oliveira ◽  
Jacqueline Andréia Bernardes Leão-Cordeiro ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective This metanalysis aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography colonography in colorectal polyp detection. Methods A literature search was performed in the PubMed and Web of Science databases. Results A total of 1,872 patients (males 57.2%, females 42.8%) aged 49 to 82 years old (mean age 59.7 ± 5.3 years) were included in this metanalysis. The estimated sensitivity of computed tomography colonography was 88.4% (46.3–95.7%, coefficient of variation [CV] = 28.5%) and the estimated specificity was 73.6% (47.4–100.0%, CV = 37.5%). For lesions up to 9 mm, the sensitivity was 82.5% (62.0–99.9%, CV = 25.1%) and the specificity was 79.2% (32.0–98.0%, CV = 22.9%). For lesions > 9 mm, the sensitivity was 90.2% (64.0–100.0%, CV = 7.4%) and the specificity was 94.7% (80.0–100.0%, CV = 6.2%). No statistically significant differences in sensitivity according to the size of the lesion were found (p = 0.0958); however, the specificity was higher for lesions > 9 mm (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Most of the studies analyzed in the present work were conducted before 2010, which is about a decade after computed tomography colonography started being indicated as a screening method by European and American guidelines. Therefore, more studies aimed at analyzing the technique after further technological advancements are necessary, which could lead to the development of more modern devices.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurits P. Engbersen ◽  
Max J. Lahaye ◽  
Regina G.H. Beets-Tan

Imaging increasingly plays an important role in selecting the most optimal treatment for patients with colon and rectal cancer. While in colon cancer, computed tomography (CT) remains the modality of choice for local and distant staging, in patients with rectal cancer magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the main modality and mandatory for local staging. Endoluminal rectal ultrasound (ERUS) is the preferred staging method for superficial rectal tumors. This chapter addresses the current role of various imaging modalities in colorectal tumor staging. This review contains 4 figures and 50 references. Key words: Preoperative imaging, Colorectal cancer, Magnetic resonance imaging, Diffusion weighted MRI, Computed tomography, Mesorectal fascia, TNM staging, Treatment stratification


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurits P. Engbersen ◽  
Max J. Lahaye ◽  
Regina G.H. Beets-Tan

Imaging increasingly plays an important role in selecting the most optimal treatment for patients with colon and rectal cancer. While in colon cancer, computed tomography (CT) remains the modality of choice for local and distant staging, in patients with rectal cancer magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the main modality and mandatory for local staging. Endoluminal rectal ultrasound (ERUS) is the preferred staging method for superficial rectal tumors. This chapter addresses the current role of various imaging modalities in colorectal tumor staging. This review contains 4 figures and 50 references. Key words: Preoperative imaging, Colorectal cancer, Magnetic resonance imaging, Diffusion weighted MRI, Computed tomography, Mesorectal fascia, TNM staging, Treatment stratification


Cancer ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 109 (11) ◽  
pp. 2213-2221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Perry J. Pickhardt ◽  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Andrea Laghi ◽  
Angelo Zullo ◽  
David H. Kim ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 1492-1498 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Meiklejohn ◽  
Lloyd J. Ridley ◽  
Meng C. Ngu ◽  
James L. Cowlishaw ◽  
Alex Duller ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eu Jin Lim ◽  
Christopher Leung ◽  
Alex Pitman ◽  
Damien L. Stella ◽  
Gregor Brown ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document