Diagnostic accuracy of ≥ 16-slice spiral computed tomography for local staging of colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 1 Basic characteristics of studies included

Ref.	Year	Nationality	Sample size (case)	Gender (male/female)	Average age	Subjects	Slices of CT scan	Type of research
Tezcan et al[15]	2013	Turkey	159	115/44	60 (28-82)	Colorectal cancer	16	Retrospective
Rollven et al[16]	2013	Stockholm	29	17/11	73 ± 11.25	Colon cancer	64	Prospective
da Fonte et al[17]	2012	Turkey	25	12/13	59.8 ± 10	Colorectal cancer	16	Prospective
Sibileau et al[18]	2014	France	53	27/26	70 ± 11.75	Colon cancer	16	Prospective
Hunter et al[19]	2017	UK	58	34/26	69.3 ± 13.6	Colon cancer	16 or 64	Prospective
Lee et al[20]	2014	Korea	266	154/112	63.7 ± 13	Colon cancer	16	Retrospective
Maupoey et al[21]	2019	Spain	217	128/89	70 ± 13.75	Colon cancer	64	Prospective
Dighe et al[22]	2010	Royal	84		75 ± 10.5	Colon cancer	64	Prospective
Lao et al[23]	2013	Taiwan	152	82/70	66 ± 5.125	Colon cancer	64	Retrospective
Flor et al[24]	2013	Italy	69	31/38	68 ± 9	Colorectal cancer	64	Prospective
Malmstrøm et al[25]	2018	Denmark	501	271/230	69.4 ± 9.7	Colon cancer	64	Retrospective

CT: Computed tomography; MDCT: Multidetector row computed tomography.

Table 2 Results of T staging in included studies

Ref.	Stage	Number	Histology +	Histology -	TP	FP	FN	TN	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)
Tezcan et al[15]	T1/T2	159	17	142	13	3	4	139	76.47	97.89
Tezcan et al[15]	T3	159	121	38	116	8	5	30	96.00	79.00
Tezcan et al[15]	T4	159	21	138	17	1	4	137	81.00	99.00
Rollvén et al[16]	T0-T3ab	29	16	13	14	4	2	9	87.50	69.23
Rollvén et al[16]	T3cd-T4	29	13	16	9	2	4	14	69.23	87.50
Rollvén et al[16]	T0-T3ab	29	16	13	13	4	3	9	81.25	69.23
Rollvén et al[16]	T3cd-T4	29	13	16	9	3	4	13	69.23	81.25
da Fonte et al[17]	T1/T2	25	7	18	4	2	3	16	57.10	88.90
da Fonte et al[17]	T3	25	16	9	14	3	2	6	87.50	66.70
da Fonte et al[17]	T4	25	2	23	2	0	0	23	100.00	100.00
Sibileau et al[18]	T1/T2	53	10	43	6	1	4	42	60.00	97.67
Sibileau et al[18]	T3	53	32	21	26	8	6	13	81.25	61.90
Sibileau et al[18]	T4	53	11	42	9	5	2	37	81.82	88.10
Hunter et al[19]	T3/T4	53	42	11	34	7	8	4	81.00	36.00
Hunter et al[19]	T1/T2	53	11	42	4	8	7	34	36.36	80.95
Hunter et al[19]	T3/T4	53	42	11	29	5	13	6	69.00	55.00
Hunter et al[19]	T1/T2	53	11	42	6	13	5	29	54.55	69.05
Lee et al[20]	T3	266	138	128	138	128	0	0	100.00	0.00
Lee et al[20]	T4	266	63	203	61	195	2	8	97.40	4.00
Maupoey et al[21]	T1/T2	225	69	156	58	18	11	138	84.06	88.46
Maupoey et al[21]	T3	225	77	148	51	26	26	122	66.23	82.43
Maupoey et al[21]	T4a	225	71	154	45	14	26	140	63.38	90.91
Maupoey et al[21]	T4b	225	8	217	7	6	1	211	87.50	97.24
Dighe et al[22]	T3 ≥ 5 mm and T4	84	48	36	40	12	8	24	83.33	66.67
Dighe et al[22]	T1/T2 and T3 < 5 mm	84	36	48	24	8	12	40	66.67	83.33
Lao et al[23]	T0 or Tis	153	4	149	2	19	2	130	50.00	87.25
Lao et al[23]	T1	153	18	135	1	0	17	135	5.56	100.00
Lao et al[23]	T2	153	25	128	6	27	19	101	24.00	78.91
Lao et al[23]	T3	153	98	55	74	19	24	36	75.51	65.45
Lao et al[23]	T4	153	8	145	1	4	7	141	12.50	97.24
Lao et al[23]	T0–Tis, T1–T2	153	47	106	33	22	14	84	70.21	79.25
Lao et al[23]	T3/T4	153	106	47	84	14	22	33	79.25	70.21
Flor et al[24]	T1/T2	75	17	58	16	17	1	41	96.00	71.00
Flor et al[24]	T3/T4	75	58	17	41	1	14	16	70.69	94.12
Malmstrøm et al[25]	T1/T2	501	163	338	136	141	27	197	83.44	58.28
Malmstrøm et al[25]	T3 ≤ 5 mm	501	211	290	55	44	156	246	26.07	84.83
Malmstrøm et al[25]	T3 > 5 mm	501	68	433	34	53	34	380	50.00	87.76
Malmstrøm et al[25]	T4	501	59	442	19	19	40	423	32.20	95.70

TP: True positive; FP: False positive; FN: False negative; TN: True negative.

Table 3 Results of N staging in included studies

Ref.	Staging	Number	Histology +	Histology -	TP	FP	FN	TN	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)
Tezcan et al[15]	N0	159	75	84	24	0	51	84	32.00	100.00
Tezcan et al[15]	N1	159	46	113	28	23	18	90	61.00	80.00
Tezcan et al[15]	N2	159	38	121	38	46	0	75	100.00	62.00
Hunter et al[19]	N1/N2	53	22	31	14	12	8	19	64.00	60.00
Hunter et al[19]	N1/N2	53	22	31	16	18	6	13	73.00	43.00
Lao et al[23]	Nx or N0	153	76	77	48	34	28	43	63.16	55.84
Lao et al[23]	N1	153	34	119	8	31	26	88	23.53	73.95
Lao et al[23]	N2	153	43	110	17	15	26	95	39.53	86.36

TP: True positive; FP: False positive; FN: False negative; TN: True negative.

Table 4 Diagnostic results of included studies

Ref.	A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	A7	A8	A9	A10	A11	A12	A13	A14	A15	A16	A17	A18	A19	A20
Tezcan et al[15]	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Unclear	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Unclear
Rollven et al[16]	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Unclear	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Unclear
da Fonte et al[17]	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Unclear	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Unclear
Sibileau et al[18]	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Unclear	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Unclear
Hunter et al[19]	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Unclear	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Unclear
Sibileau et al[18]	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Unclear	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Unclear
Maupoey et al[21]	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Unclear	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Unclear
Dighe et al[22]	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Unclear	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Unclear
Lao et al[23]	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Unclear	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Unclear
Flor et al[24]	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Unclear	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Unclear
Malmstrøm et al[25]	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Unclear	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Unclear

A1-A20 in the table correspond to the 20 items in the IHE quality assessment checklist, namely, A1: Were the hypotheses/aims/objectives of the research clearly stated in the abstract, introduction and methodology? A2: Were the characteristics of the participants included in the research described? A3: Were the cases collected from multiple centers? A4: Are the entry eligibility criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria) clear and appropriate? A5: Were the participants recruited continuously? A6: Were the participants involved in the study at the similarity of the disease? A7: Were the interventions clearly described in the research? A8: Were additional interventions (combined interventions) clearly reported in the research? A9: Was the results measurement clearly defined in the introduction or the method section? A10: Were the relevant results appropriately measured by objective and/or subjective methods? A11: Were the results measured before and after the interventions? A12: Were the statistical tests used to assess the relevant results appropriate? A13: Were the lengths of follow-ups reported? A14: Were the losses reported with follow-ups? A15: Was the random variability of the data analysis on the relevant results assessed in the research? A16: Were the adverse events reported? A17: Were the conclusions of the research supported by the results? A18: Were the interest conflicts and supporting sources of the research reported? A19: Is this study prospective? A20: Are the major assessment results irrelevant to the intervention status?