PURPOSE: We report a preliminary evaluation of the performance of computed tomography colonography (CTC) systematically obtained before optical colonoscopy (OC) in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT) within a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer (CRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine subjects with positive FOBT from a regional screening programme were invited to perform same day CTC and OC. CTC was performed with standard bowel preparation. OC with segmental unblinding was the reference standard. A per-patient per-adenoma analysis was performed. RESULTS: Forty-nine of 79 subjects (62%) with positive FOBT adhered to the study and completed both examinations. Twenty-two (44.9%) of the 49 had a cancer or an adenoma ≥6 mm. Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value for cancer or adenoma ≥6 mm were 95.5% (95%CI:77.2%-99.9%), 51.9% (95%CI:32.0%-71.3%), 93.3% (95%CI:68.1%-99.8%) and 61.8% (95%CI:43.6%-77.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a FOBT-based screening programme for CRC, CTC showed a high sensitivity, but relatively low specificity and positive predictive value, for cancer and adenoma ≥6 mm. Probably performing CTC without faecal tagging as second line test after a positive FOBT is not a cost-effective strategy.
PURPOSE: We report a preliminary evaluation of the performance of computed tomography colonography (CTC) systematically obtained before optical colonoscopy (OC) in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT) within a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer (CRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine subjects with positive FOBT from a regional screening programme were invited to perform same day CTC and OC. CTC was performed with standard bowel preparation. OC with segmental unblinding was the reference standard. A per-patient per-adenoma analysis was performed. RESULTS: Forty-nine of 79 subjects (62%) with positive FOBT adhered to the study and completed both examinations. Twenty-two (44.9%) of the 49 had a cancer or an adenoma ≥6 mm. Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value for cancer or adenoma ≥6 mm were 95.5% (95%CI:77.2%-99.9%), 51.9% (95%CI:32.0%-71.3%), 93.3% (95%CI:68.1%-99.8%) and 61.8% (95%CI:43.6%-77.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a FOBT-based screening programme for CRC, CTC showed a high sensitivity, but relatively low specificity and positive predictive value, for cancer and adenoma ≥6 mm. Probably performing CTC without faecal tagging as second line test after a positive FOBT is not a cost-effective strategy.
Authors: S Gryspeerdt; P Lefere; M Herman; R Deman; L Rutgeerts; G Ghillebert; F Baert; M Baekelandt; B Van Holsbeeck Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-02-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Thomas M Gluecker; C Daniel Johnson; William S Harmsen; Kenneth P Offord; Ann M Harris; Lynn A Wilson; David A Ahlquist Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: G Grazzini; G Castiglione; C Ciabattoni; F Franceschini; D Giorgi; S Gozzi; P Mantellini; P Lopane; M Perco; T Rubeca; P Salvadori; C B Visioli; M Zappa Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Daniele Regge; Cristiana Laudi; Giovanni Galatola; Patrizia Della Monica; Luigina Bonelli; Giuseppe Angelelli; Roberto Asnaghi; Brunella Barbaro; Carlo Bartolozzi; Didier Bielen; Luca Boni; Claudia Borghi; Paolo Bruzzi; Maria Carla Cassinis; Massimo Galia; Teresa Maria Gallo; Andrea Grasso; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi; Maria Cristina Martina; Emanuele Neri; Carlo Senore; Giovanni Simonetti; Silvia Venturini; Giovanni Gandini Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 56.272
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: E Neri; P Vagli; F Turini; F Cerri; A Bardine; C Cecchi; G Naldini; F Costa; S Marchi; C Bartolozzi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-05-06 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Jaap Stoker; Onofre Alarcon; Federico Barbaro; Davide Bellini; Michael Bretthauer; Margriet C De Haan; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Monika Ferlitsch; Steve Halligan; Emma Helbren; Mikael Hellstrom; Ernst J Kuipers; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Emanuele Neri; Lucio Petruzziello; Andrew Plumb; Daniele Regge; Stuart A Taylor; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 5.315