Literature DB >> 18799557

Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers.

C Daniel Johnson1, Mei-Hsiu Chen, Alicia Y Toledano, Jay P Heiken, Abraham Dachman, Mark D Kuo, Christine O Menias, Betina Siewert, Jugesh I Cheema, Richard G Obregon, Jeff L Fidler, Peter Zimmerman, Karen M Horton, Kevin Coakley, Revathy B Iyer, Amy K Hara, Robert A Halvorsen, Giovanna Casola, Judy Yee, Benjamin A Herman, Lawrence J Burgart, Paul J Limburg.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a noninvasive option in screening for colorectal cancer. However, its accuracy as a screening tool in asymptomatic adults has not been well defined.
METHODS: We recruited 2600 asymptomatic study participants, 50 years of age or older, at 15 study centers. CT colonographic images were acquired with the use of standard bowel preparation, stool and fluid tagging, mechanical insufflation, and multidetector-row CT scanners (with 16 or more rows). Radiologists trained in CT colonography reported all lesions measuring 5 mm or more in diameter. Optical colonoscopy and histologic review were performed according to established clinical protocols at each center and served as the reference standard. The primary end point was detection by CT colonography of histologically confirmed large adenomas and adenocarcinomas (10 mm in diameter or larger) that had been detected by colonoscopy; detection of smaller colorectal lesions (6 to 9 mm in diameter) was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Complete data were available for 2531 participants (97%). For large adenomas and cancers, the mean (+/-SE) per-patient estimates of the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for CT colonography were 0.90+/-0.03, 0.86+/-0.02, 0.23+/-0.02, 0.99+/-<0.01, and 0.89+/-0.02, respectively. The sensitivity of 0.90 (i.e., 90%) indicates that CT colonography failed to detect a lesion measuring 10 mm or more in diameter in 10% of patients. The per-polyp sensitivity for large adenomas or cancers was 0.84+/-0.04. The per-patient sensitivity for detecting adenomas that were 6 mm or more in diameter was 0.78.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study of asymptomatic adults, CT colonographic screening identified 90% of subjects with adenomas or cancers measuring 10 mm or more in diameter. These findings augment published data on the role of CT colonography in screening patients with an average risk of colorectal cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00084929; American College of Radiology Imaging Network [ACRIN] number, 6664.) 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18799557      PMCID: PMC2654614          DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0800996

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  22 in total

1.  Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population.

Authors:  Thomas M Gluecker; C Daniel Johnson; Lynn A Wilson; Robert L Maccarty; Timothy J Welch; David J Vanness; David A Ahlquist
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps.

Authors:  C Daniel Johnson; William S Harmsen; Lynn A Wilson; Robert L Maccarty; Timothy J Welch; Duane M Ilstrup; David A Ahlquist
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 4.  Incidence of colonic perforation at CT colonography: review of existing data and implications for screening of asymptomatic adults.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Extracolonic abnormalities discovered incidentally at CT colonography in a male population.

Authors:  Judy Yee; Naveen N Kumar; Suchitra Godara; Janice A Casamina; Robert Hom; Gregory Galdino; Peter Dell; Darice Liu
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Potentially serious adverse events at CT colonography in symptomatic patients: national survey of the United Kingdom.

Authors:  David Burling; Steve Halligan; Andrew Slater; Michael J Noakes; Stuart A Taylor
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Incidental extracolonic findings at CT colonography.

Authors:  A K Hara; C D Johnson; R L MacCarty; T J Welch
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 8.  Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jeroen C van Rijn; Johannes B Reitsma; Jaap Stoker; Patrick M Bossuyt; Sander J van Deventer; Evelien Dekker
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Cancer screening in the United States, 2007: a review of current guidelines, practices, and prospects.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Vilma Cokkinides; Harmon J Eyre
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  Prevalence of clinically important histology in small adenomas.

Authors:  Lynn F Butterly; Michael P Chase; Heiko Pohl; Gale S Fiarman
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 11.382

View more
  265 in total

Review 1.  CT colonography: perforation rates and potential radiation risks.

Authors:  A Berrington de Gonzalez; Kwang Pyo Kim; Judy Yee
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2010-04

Review 2.  Improving the accuracy of CTC interpretation: computer-aided detection.

Authors:  Ronald M Summers
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2010-04

3.  Automated image-based colon cleansing for laxative-free CT colonography computer-aided polyp detection.

Authors:  Marius George Linguraru; Neil Panjwani; Joel G Fletcher; Ronald M Summers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  National CT colonography trial (ACRIN 6664): comparison of three full-laxative bowel preparations in more than 2500 average-risk patients.

Authors:  Amy K Hara; Mark D Kuo; Meridith Blevins; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Judy Yee; Abraham Dachman; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; C Daniel Johnson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Laxative-free CT colonography.

Authors:  A Slater; M Betts; H D'Costa
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Mathematical models and cost-effective screening strategies for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Robert A Smith
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-08-16       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 7.  CT colonography in the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer: emphasis on pre- and post-surgical evaluation.

Authors:  Nurhee Hong; Seong Ho Park
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Does training and experience influence the accuracy of computed tomography colonography interpretation?

Authors:  Greg Rosenfeld; Yi Tzu Nancy Fu; Brendan Quiney; Hong Qian; Darin Krygier; Jacquie Brown; Patrick Vos; Pari Tiwari; Jennifer Telford; Brian Bressler; Robert Enns
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-02-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 9.  Colorectal cancer screening--optimizing current strategies and new directions.

Authors:  Ernst J Kuipers; Thomas Rösch; Michael Bretthauer
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 66.675

10.  Pilot study on efficacy of reduced cathartic bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl.

Authors:  Zhi-Yuan Chen; He-Song Shen; Ming-Yue Luo; Chai-Jie Duan; Wen-Li Cai; Hong-Bing Lu; Guo-Peng Zhang; Yang Liu; Jerome Z Liang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.