PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic (CT) colonography as a screening tool for average-risk asymptomatic subjects with regard to participation, acceptability, and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT colonography for colorectal neoplasia screening was offered to 2,000 subjects aged 50-54 and 65-69 years. Only asymptomatic subjects at average risk of colorectal neoplasia were enrolled. Participants underwent CT colonography followed by colonoscopy if CT colonography findings showed any polyps. Acceptability was measured with a 100-point (0, most favorable; 100, least favorable) visual analogue scale (VAS). Chi2 statistic was used to compare participation rates among subgroups. Safety of CT colonography was evaluated by recording all important adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 1,452 subjects were eligible for screening. The adjusted participation rate was 28.4%. Participation was higher in younger subjects and in those from a high socioeconomic region. Major reasons for nonparticipation were insufficient time and perceived good health. Median VAS scores for pain, general satisfaction, embarrassment, and willingness to repeat screening were 13, 6, 8, and 5, respectively. Most subjects found CT colonography better than (60%) or same as (32%) expected. Ninety-three (27.4%) of 340 subjects were referred for colonoscopy, with polyps found in 67 (positive predictive value, 0.73). By adopting criteria that a positive finding at CT colonography is that of a single polyp larger than 5 mm or multiple polyps larger than 2 mm, 14% of CT examinations would have led to colonoscopy; 5.7% of CT findings were false-positive, with no significant impairment in large polyp detection. There were no important adverse events related to CT colonography, although four subjects had syncope or presyncope related to bowel preparation. CONCLUSION: Community-based colorectal neoplasia screening with CT colonography was accompanied by a participation rate that compares favorably with that of similar screening programs. CT colonography was highly acceptable to participants. Copyright RSNA, 2003
PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic (CT) colonography as a screening tool for average-risk asymptomatic subjects with regard to participation, acceptability, and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT colonography for colorectal neoplasia screening was offered to 2,000 subjects aged 50-54 and 65-69 years. Only asymptomatic subjects at average risk of colorectal neoplasia were enrolled. Participants underwent CT colonography followed by colonoscopy if CT colonography findings showed any polyps. Acceptability was measured with a 100-point (0, most favorable; 100, least favorable) visual analogue scale (VAS). Chi2 statistic was used to compare participation rates among subgroups. Safety of CT colonography was evaluated by recording all important adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 1,452 subjects were eligible for screening. The adjusted participation rate was 28.4%. Participation was higher in younger subjects and in those from a high socioeconomic region. Major reasons for nonparticipation were insufficient time and perceived good health. Median VAS scores for pain, general satisfaction, embarrassment, and willingness to repeat screening were 13, 6, 8, and 5, respectively. Most subjects found CT colonography better than (60%) or same as (32%) expected. Ninety-three (27.4%) of 340 subjects were referred for colonoscopy, with polyps found in 67 (positive predictive value, 0.73). By adopting criteria that a positive finding at CT colonography is that of a single polyp larger than 5 mm or multiple polyps larger than 2 mm, 14% of CT examinations would have led to colonoscopy; 5.7% of CT findings were false-positive, with no significant impairment in large polyp detection. There were no important adverse events related to CT colonography, although four subjects had syncope or presyncope related to bowel preparation. CONCLUSION: Community-based colorectal neoplasia screening with CT colonography was accompanied by a participation rate that compares favorably with that of similar screening programs. CT colonography was highly acceptable to participants. Copyright RSNA, 2003
Authors: David Burling; Steve Halligan; Douglas G Altman; Wendy Atkin; Clive Bartram; Helen Fenlon; Andrea Laghi; Jaap Stoker; Stuart Taylor; Roger Frost; Guido Dessey; Melinda De Villiers; Jasper Florie; Shane Foley; Lesley Honeyfield; Riccardo Iannaccone; Teresa Gallo; Clive Kay; Philippe Lefere; Andrew Lowe; Filipo Mangiapane; Jesse Marrannes; Emmanuele Neri; Giulia Nieddu; David Nicholson; Alan O'Hare; Sante Ori; Benedetta Politi; Martin Poulus; Daniele Regge; Lisa Renaut; Velauthan Rudralingham; Saverio Signoretta; Paola Vagli; Victor Van der Hulst; Jane Williams-Butt Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-04-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Otto S Lin; Richard A Kozarek; Michael Gluck; Geoffrey C Jiranek; Johannes Koch; Kris V Kowdley; Shayan Irani; Matthew Nguyen; Jason A Dominitz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 5.128