Govindarajah, N;
Livingstone, D;
Mitchell, R;
Farrell-Dillon, K;
Antram, E;
Malekout, S;
Beharry, N;
Patel, K;
Patel, N;
Kandiah, K;
et al.
Govindarajah, N; Livingstone, D; Mitchell, R; Farrell-Dillon, K; Antram, E; Malekout, S; Beharry, N; Patel, K; Patel, N; Kandiah, K; Wale, A
(2025)
The role of routine imaging in identifying endoluminal colorectal pathology, a United Kingdom clinical experience.
Abdominal Radiology.
ISSN 2366-004X
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-025-05255-6
SGUL Authors: Wale, Anita
|
PDF
Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) |
Abstract
Purpose Colorectal 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. Methods We 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. Results Of 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). Conclusion Unprepared 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.
| Item Type: | Article | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Additional Information: | © The Author(s) 2025 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. | ||||||
| Keywords: | Colorectal neoplasms, Radiology, Tomography, X-ray computed, X-ray computed + colonoscopy or virtual colonoscopy | ||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Abdominal Radiology | ||||||
| ISSN: | 2366-004X | ||||||
| Language: | en | ||||||
| Media of Output: | Print-Electronic | ||||||
| Related URLs: | |||||||
| Publisher License: | Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 | ||||||
| PubMed ID: | 41428047 | ||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||
| Go to PubMed abstract | |||||||
| URI: | https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/118170 | ||||||
| Publisher's version: | https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-025-05255-6 |
Statistics
Actions (login required)
![]() |
Edit Item |

