Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Digestive Diseases and Sciences
Published in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences 7/2022

30-07-2021 | Computed Tomography | Review

Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer

Authors: Wen Liu, An-Rong Zeng, Han-Zhou Tang, Jin-Wei Qiang

Published in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences | Issue 7/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Smith RA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Brooks D et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2015: a review of current American cancer society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:30–54.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Jemal A, Center MM, DeSantis C, Ward EM. Global patterns of cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:1893–1907.PubMedCrossRef
4.
5.
Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Zauber AG, Habbema JD, Kuipers EJ. Effect of rising chemotherapy costs on the cost savings of colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1412–1422.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;375:1624–1633.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Force USPST, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2016;315:2564–2575.CrossRef
8.
Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:130–160.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Geenen RW, Hussain SM, Cademartiri F, Poley JW, Siersema PD, Krestin GP. CT and MR colonography: scanning techniques, postprocessing, and emphasis on polyp detection. Radiographics 2004;24:e18.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Imbriaco M, Akhurst T, Hilton S et al. Whole-Body FDG-PET in Patients with Recurrent Colorectal Carcinoma. A Comparative Study with CT. Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3:107–114.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Walter SD. Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med 2002;21:1237–1256.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Deeks J, Higgins J, Altman D. Analyzing data and undertaking meta-analyses. GS HJ, ed. Oxford, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
15.
16.
Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882–893.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC 3rd, Barish MA, Clarke PD, Ferrucci JT. A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1496–1503.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Miao YM, Amin Z, Healy J et al. A prospective single centre study comparing computed tomography pneumocolon against colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal neoplasms. Gut 2000;47:832–837.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Morrin MM, Farrell RJ, Raptopoulos V, McGee JB, Bleday R, Kruskal JB. Role of virtual computed tomographic colonography in patients with colorectal cancers and obstructing colorectal lesions. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:303–311.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Spinzi G, Belloni G, Martegani A, Sangiovanni A, Del Favero C, Minoli G. Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:394–400.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, Steinauer-Gebauer AM, Wall SD, McQuaid KR. Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 2001;219:685–692.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone I et al. Detection of colorectal lesions with virtual computed tomographic colonography. Am J Surg 2002;183:124–131.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Wong BC, Wong WM, Chan JK et al. Virtual colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancers in a Chinese population. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002;17:1323–1327.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Taylor SA, Halligan S, Saunders BP et al. Use of multidetector-row CT colonography for detection of colorectal neoplasia in patients referred via the Department of Health “2-Week-wait” initiative. Clin Radiol 2003;58:855–861.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Munikrishnan V, Gillams AR, Lees WR, Vaizey CJ, Boulos PB. Prospective study comparing multislice CT colonography with colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal cancer and polyps. Dis Colon Rectum 2003;46:1384–1390.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004;291:1713–1719.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Hoppe H, Netzer P, Spreng A, Quattropani C, Mattich J, Dinkel HP. Prospective comparison of contrast enhanced CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasms in a single institutional study using second-look colonoscopy with discrepant results. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1924–1935.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Chung DJ, Huh KC, Choi WJ, Kim JK. CT colonography using 16-MDCT in the evaluation of colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:98–103.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Multicentre Australian Colorectal-neoplasia Screening G. A comparison of colorectal neoplasia screening tests: a multicentre community-based study of the impact of consumer choice. Med J Aust 2006;184:546–550.CrossRef
30.
White TJ, Avery GR, Kennan N, Syed AM, Hartley JE, Monson JR. Virtual colonoscopy vs conventional colonoscopy in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer–a prospective trial of 150 patients. Colorectal Dis 2009;11:138–145.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Sali L, Falchini M, Della Monica P et al. CT colonography before colonoscopy in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test. Preliminary experience. Radiol Med 2010;115:1267–1278.PubMedCrossRef
32.
von Atzingen AC, Tiferes DA, Deak E, Matos D, D’Ippolito G. Using computed tomography colonography in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer—a prospective study in a university hospital in South America. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2014;69:723–730.CrossRef
33.
Weinberg DS, Pickhardt PJ, Bruining DH et al. Computed Tomography Colonography vs Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Surveillance After Surgery. Gastroenterology 2018;154:927-934e924.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM et al. Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 2000;119:300–304.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Wildermuth S, Marincek B, Fried M, Debatin JF. Colonic masses: detection with MR colonography. Radiology 2000;216:383–388.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Lauenstein T, Holtmann G, Schoenfelder D, Bosk S, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF. MR colonography without colonic cleansing: a new strategy to improve patient acceptance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:823–827.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Luboldt W, Luz O, Vonthein R et al. Three-dimensional double-contrast MR colonography: a display method simulating double-contrast barium enema. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:930–932.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Ruehm SG, Holtmann G, Debatin JF. MR colonography with barium-based fecal tagging: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2002;223:248–254.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U et al. Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 2003;52:1738–1743.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Leung WK, Lam WW, Wu JC et al. Magnetic resonance colonography in the detection of colonic neoplasm in high-risk and average-risk individuals. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:102–108.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, Goehde SC, Debatin JF, Ruehm SG. MR colonography: how does air compare to water for colonic distention? J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;19:216–221.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Schlag P, Lehner B, Strauss LG, Georgi P, Herfarth C. Scar or recurrent rectal cancer. Positron emission tomography is more helpful for diagnosis than immunoscintigraphy. Arch Surg 1989;124:197–200.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Schiepers C, Penninckx F, De Vadder N et al. Contribution of PET in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional imaging. Eur J Surg Oncol 1995;21:517–522.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Ogunbiyi OA, Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F et al. Detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer: comparison of positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Ann Surg Oncol 1997;4:613–620.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Keogan MT, Lowe VJ, Baker ME, McDermott VG, Lyerly HK, Coleman RE. Local recurrence of rectal cancer: evaluation with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging. Abdom Imaging 1997;22:332–337.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Takeuchi O, Saito N, Koda K, Sarashina H, Nakajima N. Clinical assessment of positron emission tomography for the diagnosis of local recurrence in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 1999;86:932–937.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Whiteford MH, Whiteford HM, Yee LF et al. Usefulness of FDG-PET scan in the assessment of suspected metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:759–767 (discussion 767-770).PubMedCrossRef
48.
Staib L, Schirrmeister H, Reske SN, Beger HG. Is (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in recurrent colorectal cancer a contribution to surgical decision making? Am J Surg 2000;180:1–5.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Willkomm P, Bender H, Bangard M, Decker P, Grunwald F, Biersack HJ. FDG PET and immunoscintigraphy with 99mTc-labeled antibody fragments for detection of the recurrence of colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1657–1663.PubMed
50.
Arulampalam T, Costa D, Visvikis D, Boulos P, Taylor I, Ell P. The impact of FDG-PET on the management algorithm for recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:1758–1765.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Lonneux M, Reffad AM, Detry R, Kartheuser A, Gigot JF, Pauwels S. FDG-PET improves the staging and selection of patients with recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:915–921.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Moore HG, Akhurst T, Larson SM, Minsky BD, Mazumdar M, Guillem JG. A case-controlled study of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of pelvic recurrence in previously irradiated rectal cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg 2003;197:22–28.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Even-Sapir E, Parag Y, Lerman H et al. Detection of recurrence in patients with rectal cancer: PET/CT after abdominoperineal or anterior resection. Radiology 2004;232:815–822.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P, McCormack L, Kadry Z, Clavien PA. Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 2004;240:1027–1034 (discussion 1035-1026).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Fukunaga H, Sekimoto M, Ikeda M et al. Fusion image of positron emission tomography and computed tomography for the diagnosis of local recurrence of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12:561–569.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Bellomi M, Rizzo S, Travaini LL et al. Role of multidetector CT and FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis of local and distant recurrence of resected rectal cancer. Radiol Med 2007;112:681–690.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al. Performance of integrated FDG PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: Comparison with integrated FDG PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36:1388–1396.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Shyn PB, Madan R, Wu C, Erturk SM, Silverman SG. PET/CT pattern analysis for surgical staple line recurrence in patients with colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:414–421.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Fiocchi F, Iotti V, Ligabue G et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI and PET-CT in the evaluation of patients with suspected local recurrence of rectal carcinoma. Radiol Med 2010;115:906–919.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Smeets P, Ham H, Ceelen W, Boterberg T, Verstraete K, Goethals I. Differentiation between peri-anastomotic inflammatory changes and local recurrence following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy surgery for colorectal cancer using visual and semiquantitative analysis of PET-CT data. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;54:327–332.PubMed
61.
Han A, Xue J, Zhu D, Zheng J, Yue J, Yu J. Clinical value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in postoperative monitoring for patients with colorectal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol 2011;35:497–500.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Deleau C, Buecher B, Rousseau C et al. Clinical impact of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scan/computed tomography in comparison with computed tomography on the detection of colorectal cancer recurrence. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;23:275–281.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Bamba Y, Itabashi M, Kameoka S. Management of local recurrence of colorectal cancer: the role of PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 2011;36:322–326.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Ozkan E, Soydal C, Araz M, Aras G. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen measurement, abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography, and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of colorectal cancer recurrence: a correlative study. Nucl Med Commun 2012;33:990–994.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Peng J, He Y, Xu J, Sheng J, Cai S, Zhang Z. Detection of incidental colorectal tumours with 18F-labelled 2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans: results of a prospective study. Colorectal Dis 2011;13:e374-378.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Chiewvit S, Jiranantanakorn T, Apisarnthanarak P et al. Detection of recurrent colorectal cancer by 18F-FDG PET/CT comparison with contrast enhanced CT scan. J Med Assoc Thai 2013;96:703–708.PubMed
67.
Gade M, Kubik M, Fisker RV, Thorlacius-Ussing O, Petersen LJ. Diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT as first choice in the detection of recurrent colorectal cancer due to rising CEA. Cancer Imaging 2015;15:11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
Hwang HS, Han YM, Choi YJ, Koh SH, Park HC. Visual and quantitative comparison of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT findings in the detection of pelvic tumor recurrence in colorectal cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2016;30:355–361.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Odalovic S, Stojiljkovic M, Sobic-Saranovic D et al. Prospective study on diagnostic and prognostic significance of postoperative FDG PET/CT in recurrent colorectal carcinoma patients: comparison with MRI and tumor markers. Neoplasma 2017;64:954–961.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Yu X, Zhu L, Dai D et al. Application and Indication of Carcinoembryonic Antigen Triggered 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Scanning in the Detection of Relapse of Colorectal Cancer Patients After Curative Therapy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2017;41:719–725.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Porte F, Uppara M, Malietzis G et al. CT colonography for surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy. Eur Radiol 2017;27:51–60.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Purkayastha S, Tekkis PP, Athanasiou T et al. Magnetic resonance colonography versus colonoscopy as a diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2005;60:980–989.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Yu T, Meng N, Chi D, Zhao Y, Wang K, Luo Y. Diagnostic Value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Detecting Local Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of 26 Individual Studies. Cell Biochem Biophys 2015;72:443–451.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, Hellstrom M. Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 2002;222:337–345.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D et al. Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol 2002;12:1410–1415.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:578–585.PubMedCrossRef
77.
van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J et al. CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 2004;233:328–337.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Abd-El Khalek AAEK, Fahmy DM. Diagnostic Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Assessment of the Activity of Crohn Disease: 1.5 or 3 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2018;42:688–696.CrossRef
79.
Abdel Razek AA, Abu Zeid MM, Bilal M et al. Virtual CT colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: a prospective study. Hepatogastroenterology 2005;52:1698–1702.PubMed
80.
van der Paardt MP, Boellaard TN, Zijta FM et al. Magnetic resonance colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation in comparison to conventional colonoscopy: patient burden and preferences. Eur J Radiol 2015;84:19–25.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Florie J, Birnie E, van Gelder RE et al. MR colonography with limited bowel preparation: patient acceptance compared with that of full-preparation colonoscopy. Radiology 2007;245:150–159.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Abdel Razek AAK, Talaat M, El-Serougy L et al. Clinical Applications of Arterial Spin Labeling in Brain Tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2019;43:525–532.PubMedCrossRef
83.
El-Serougy L, Abdel Razek AA, Ezzat A et al. Assessment of diffusion tensor imaging metrics in differentiating low-grade from high-grade gliomas. Neuroradiol J 2016;29:400–407.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer
Authors
Wen Liu
An-Rong Zeng
Han-Zhou Tang
Jin-Wei Qiang
Publication date
30-07-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Digestive Diseases and Sciences / Issue 7/2022
Print ISSN: 0163-2116
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2568
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-021-07166-0

Other articles of this Issue 7/2022

Digestive Diseases and Sciences 7/2022 Go to the issue

Original Article

Safety and Efficacy of Vedolizumab Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor α Antagonists in an Elderly IBD Population: A Single Institution Retrospective Experience

Editorial

The Quality of Bowel Preparation After Bariatric Surgery: Diverse Effects of Diversion

Original Article

Regression and Random Forest Machine Learning Have Limited Performance in Predicting Bowel Preparation in Veteran Population

Original Article

Endoscopic Management of Ampullary Adenomas in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Syndrome: A Systematic Review with Pooled Analysis

Original Article

Comparison of 1-Year Colectomy Risk Between the US and Korean Patients with Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Review

Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch now

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits