BACKGROUND: Studies reported various diagnostic value of radiologic imaging modalities for diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer (CRC). AIMS: To summary the diagnosis and management of CRC using computed tomography colonography (CTC), magnetic resonance colonography (MRC), and positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library for studies published before April 2021. The diagnostic performance of CTC, MRC, and PET/CT for CRC was summarized. RESULTS: A total of 54 studies (17 studies for CTC, 8 studies for MRC, and 29 studies for PET/CT) were selected for final analysis. The sensitivity and specificity for CTC ranged from 27 to 100%, 88 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for CTC were 0.97 (95% CI 0.88-0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-1.00). The sensitivity and specificity for MRC ranged from 48 to 100%, 60 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRC were 0.98 (95% C: 0.77-1.00) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.84-0.98). The sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT ranged from 84 to 100%, 33 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.97). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CTC, MRC, and PET/CT was 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00), 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), and 0.97 (0.95% CI 0.95-0.98), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested both CTC and MRC with relative higher diagnostic value for diagnosing CRC, while PET/CT with higher diagnostic value in detecting local recurrence for patients with CRC.
BACKGROUND: Studies reported various diagnostic value of radiologic imaging modalities for diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer (CRC). AIMS: To summary the diagnosis and management of CRC using computed tomography colonography (CTC), magnetic resonance colonography (MRC), and positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library for studies published before April 2021. The diagnostic performance of CTC, MRC, and PET/CT for CRC was summarized. RESULTS: A total of 54 studies (17 studies for CTC, 8 studies for MRC, and 29 studies for PET/CT) were selected for final analysis. The sensitivity and specificity for CTC ranged from 27 to 100%, 88 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for CTC were 0.97 (95% CI 0.88-0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-1.00). The sensitivity and specificity for MRC ranged from 48 to 100%, 60 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRC were 0.98 (95% C: 0.77-1.00) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.84-0.98). The sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT ranged from 84 to 100%, 33 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.97). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CTC, MRC, and PET/CT was 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00), 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), and 0.97 (0.95% CI 0.95-0.98), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested both CTC and MRC with relative higher diagnostic value for diagnosing CRC, while PET/CT with higher diagnostic value in detecting local recurrence for patients with CRC.
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Melissa M Center; Carol DeSantis; Elizabeth M Ward Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Wendy S Atkin; Rob Edwards; Ines Kralj-Hans; Kate Wooldrage; Andrew R Hart; John M A Northover; D Max Parkin; Jane Wardle; Stephen W Duffy; Jack Cuzick Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert A Smith; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Durado Brooks; Mary Doroshenk; Stacey Fedewa; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley; Richard Wender Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; J Dik F Habbema; Ernst J Kuipers Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Remy W F Geenen; Shahid M Hussain; Filippo Cademartiri; Jan-Werner Poley; Peter D Siersema; Gabriel P Krestin Journal: Radiographics Date: 2003-10-03 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Penny Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 4.615