PURPOSE: In the framework of the 3-year project of the Italian Legatumori (2003-2006), we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) colonography in detecting colorectal lesions in a screening population with positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and thirty asymptomatic subjects (age range 45-80 years) were enrolled in the study. CT colonography was performed with standard patient preparation (no faecal tagging) and a 4-detector-row CT scanner. Image analysis was carried out with primary 2D analysis and the use of 3D endoluminal views to solve difficult cases. Patients were referred for conventional colonoscopy in the following situations: detection of three or more suspected lesions with maximum diameter<or=6 mm; evidence of one or more lesions with maximum diameter>6 mm; presence of colonic masses (maximum diameter>3 cm). RESULTS: CT colonography detected colonic masses in 12 out of 135 subjects (8%). It generated 93 false positives and 19 false negatives in the identification of diminutive lesions (<or=6 mm), and 70 false positives and six false negatives in lesions>6 mm. Sensitivity was 83% in smaller lesions and 93% in lesions>6 mm; specificity was 45% and 59%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a screening population with positive FOBT, CT colonography without faecal tagging and no definite size threshold for the reporting of polyps showed very low specificity but high sensitivity in the detection of all colorectal lesions.
PURPOSE: In the framework of the 3-year project of the Italian Legatumori (2003-2006), we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) colonography in detecting colorectal lesions in a screening population with positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and thirty asymptomatic subjects (age range 45-80 years) were enrolled in the study. CT colonography was performed with standard patient preparation (no faecal tagging) and a 4-detector-row CT scanner. Image analysis was carried out with primary 2D analysis and the use of 3D endoluminal views to solve difficult cases. Patients were referred for conventional colonoscopy in the following situations: detection of three or more suspected lesions with maximum diameter<or=6 mm; evidence of one or more lesions with maximum diameter>6 mm; presence of colonic masses (maximum diameter>3 cm). RESULTS: CT colonography detected colonic masses in 12 out of 135 subjects (8%). It generated 93 false positives and 19 false negatives in the identification of diminutive lesions (<or=6 mm), and 70 false positives and six false negatives in lesions>6 mm. Sensitivity was 83% in smaller lesions and 93% in lesions>6 mm; specificity was 45% and 59%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a screening population with positive FOBT, CT colonography without faecal tagging and no definite size threshold for the reporting of polyps showed very low specificity but high sensitivity in the detection of all colorectal lesions.
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
Authors: Joseph Ferrucci; Matthew Barish; Richard Choi; Abraham Dachman; Helen Fenlon; Seth Glick; Andrea Laghi; Michael Macari; Martina Morrin; Erik Paulson; Perry J Pickhardt; Jorge Soto; Judy Yee; Michael Zalis Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-07-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: D C Rockey; E Paulson; D Niedzwiecki; W Davis; H B Bosworth; L Sanders; J Yee; J Henderson; P Hatten; S Burdick; A Sanyal; D T Rubin; M Sterling; G Akerkar; M S Bhutani; K Binmoeller; J Garvie; E J Bini; K McQuaid; W L Foster; W M Thompson; A Dachman; R Halvorsen Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jan 22-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter B Cotton; Valerie L Durkalski; Benoit C Pineau; Yuko Y Palesch; Patrick D Mauldin; Brenda Hoffman; David J Vining; William C Small; John Affronti; Douglas Rex; Kenyon K Kopecky; Susan Ackerman; J Steven Burdick; Cecelia Brewington; Mary A Turner; Alvin Zfass; Andrew R Wright; Revathy B Iyer; Patrick Lynch; Michael V Sivak; Harold Butler Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-04-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi; Angelo Zullo; David H Kim; Sergio Morini Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: C Daniel Johnson; 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 Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L Sali; M Falchini; P Della Monica; D Regge; A G Bonanomi; G Castiglione; G Grazzini; M Zappa; F Mungai; C Volpe; M Mascalchi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-07-31 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: A Guerrisi; D Marin; A Laghi; M Di Martino; F Iafrate; R Iannaccone; C Catalano; R Passariello Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: N Faccioli; G Foti; M Barillari; A Zaccarella; L Camera; C Biasiutti; R Pozzi Mucelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-03-19 Impact factor: 3.469