David H Kim1, Perry J Pickhardt, Meghan E Hanson, J Louis Hinshaw. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic (CT) colonography performance and program outcome measures in an older cohort (65-79 years) of an established large-scale colorectal cancer screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board; informed consent waived. Retrospective analysis of the 65-79-year-old cohort (n = 577) from the University of Wisconsin CT colonography screening program (n = 5176) was undertaken. Performance and outcome measures including advanced neoplasia prevalence and colonoscopy referral, extracolonic finding, extracolonic work-up, and complication rates were obtained by using a CT colonography database and review of medical records. Comparisons between the older cohort and the general screening population were made by using the Student t, Pearson chi(2), and Fisher exact tests. A P value <or= .05 was considered to indicate a significant difference. RESULTS: With a 6-mm threshold for positivity, the overall referral rate to optical colonoscopy was 15.3% (88 of 577), leading to 277 polypectomies and the removal of 103 nondiminutive adenomas. For adenomas, the per-patient positivity rates were 10.9% (63 of 577) and 6.8% (39 of 577) at the 6- and 10-mm thresholds, respectively. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia was 7.6% (44 of 577). Fifty-four adenomas met advanced status, and five unsuspected cancers were detected. The advanced neoplasias identified were typically large, with a mean size of 21 mm. Potentially important extracolonic findings were seen in 15.4% (89 of 577) of patients, with a work-up rate of 7.8% (45 of 577). The majority of important extracolonic diagnoses were vascular aneurysms (n = 18). No major complications were encountered. CONCLUSION: CT colonography is a safe and effective screening modality for the older population. (c) RSNA, 2010.
PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic (CT) colonography performance and program outcome measures in an older cohort (65-79 years) of an established large-scale colorectal cancer screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board; informed consent waived. Retrospective analysis of the 65-79-year-old cohort (n = 577) from the University of Wisconsin CT colonography screening program (n = 5176) was undertaken. Performance and outcome measures including advanced neoplasia prevalence and colonoscopy referral, extracolonic finding, extracolonic work-up, and complication rates were obtained by using a CT colonography database and review of medical records. Comparisons between the older cohort and the general screening population were made by using the Student t, Pearson chi(2), and Fisher exact tests. A P value <or= .05 was considered to indicate a significant difference. RESULTS: With a 6-mm threshold for positivity, the overall referral rate to optical colonoscopy was 15.3% (88 of 577), leading to 277 polypectomies and the removal of 103 nondiminutive adenomas. For adenomas, the per-patient positivity rates were 10.9% (63 of 577) and 6.8% (39 of 577) at the 6- and 10-mm thresholds, respectively. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia was 7.6% (44 of 577). Fifty-four adenomas met advanced status, and five unsuspected cancers were detected. The advanced neoplasias identified were typically large, with a mean size of 21 mm. Potentially important extracolonic findings were seen in 15.4% (89 of 577) of patients, with a work-up rate of 7.8% (45 of 577). The majority of important extracolonic diagnoses were vascular aneurysms (n = 18). No major complications were encountered. CONCLUSION: CT colonography is a safe and effective screening modality for the older population. (c) RSNA, 2010.
Authors: C Daniel Johnson; Benjamin A Herman; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Alicia Y Toledano; Jay P Heiken; Abraham H Dachman; Mark D Kuo; Christine O Menias; Bettina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin J Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Amy K Hara; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; Judy Yee; Meredith Blevins; Lawrence J Burgart; Paul J Limburg; Constantine A Gatsonis Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Diana L Lam; Pari V Pandharipande; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: David H Kim; Kristina A Matkowskyj; Meghan G Lubner; J Louis Hinshaw; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; B Dustin Pooler; Jennifer M Weiss; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David H Kim; J Louis Hinshaw; Meghan G Lubner; Alejandro Munoz del Rio; B Dustin Pooler; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 5.315