AIM: Our aim was to perform a prospective evaluation of the frequency and diagnostic consequences of extracolonic findings at multidetector array computed tomography colonography (MDCTC) in asymptomatic patients undergoing surveillance for former colorectal polyps or cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy five consecutive patients undergoing surveillance for former colorectal cancer (CRC) or large bowel adenoma were examined with MDCTC. Two independent observers evaluated the images with regard to extracolonic findings. Patient records and radiological information systems were reviewed to determine the results and consequences of the workup derived from MDCTC. RESULTS: Sixty five per cent (95% confidence interval (CI) 55-73%) of patients had extracolonic abnormalities and in 12% (CI 7-18%) of patients additional workup was indicated. Two patients (3% (CI 1-6%)) underwent surgery because of the findings (one) or because of complications of the workup (one). CONCLUSION: MDCTC identifies a large number of extracolonic findings. Approximately 12% of asymptomatic patients undergo additional workup, of benefit to only a few. The high prevalence of extracolonic findings may make MDCTC a problematic colorectal screening tool for both ethical and economic reasons.
AIM: Our aim was to perform a prospective evaluation of the frequency and diagnostic consequences of extracolonic findings at multidetector array computed tomography colonography (MDCTC) in asymptomatic patients undergoing surveillance for former colorectal polyps or cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy five consecutive patients undergoing surveillance for former colorectal cancer (CRC) or large bowel adenoma were examined with MDCTC. Two independent observers evaluated the images with regard to extracolonic findings. Patient records and radiological information systems were reviewed to determine the results and consequences of the workup derived from MDCTC. RESULTS: Sixty five per cent (95% confidence interval (CI) 55-73%) of patients had extracolonic abnormalities and in 12% (CI 7-18%) of patients additional workup was indicated. Two patients (3% (CI 1-6%)) underwent surgery because of the findings (one) or because of complications of the workup (one). CONCLUSION: MDCTC identifies a large number of extracolonic findings. Approximately 12% of asymptomatic patients undergo additional workup, of benefit to only a few. The high prevalence of extracolonic findings may make MDCTC a problematic colorectal screening tool for both ethical and economic reasons.
Authors: P Pescatore; T Glücker; J Delarive; R Meuli; D Pantoflickova; B Duvoisin; P Schnyder; A L Blum; G Dorta Journal: Gut Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Michael Macari; Edmund J Bini; Xiaonan Xue; Andrew Milano; Seth S Katz; Daniel Resnick; Hersh Chandarana; Glen Krinsky; Klaus Klingenbeck; Christopher H Marshall; Alec J Megibow Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H A Ashton; M J Buxton; N E Day; L G Kim; T M Marteau; R A P Scott; S G Thompson; N M Walker Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-11-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Maryam Ghadimi Mahani; Ajaykumar C Morani; Jimmy C Lu; Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Sunil Jeph; Adam L Dorfman; Prachi P Agarwal Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2016-01-11