Literature DB >> 20842111

A comparison of optical colonoscopy and CT colonography screening strategies in the detection and recovery of subcentimeter adenomas.

Mark Benson1, Parul Dureja, Deepak Gopal, Mark Reichelderfer, Patrick R Pfau.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Evidence has shown that computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) can detect advanced adenomas at an equal rate; however, a comparison of the subcentimeter adenoma detection has not been performed. The objective of this study is to compare CTC and OC screening programs, with a focus on the detection and recovery of subcentimeter adenomas.
METHODS: In all, 1,700 screening OC examinations in average-risk patients were compared with 1,307 CTC examinations in similar patients drawn from the same referral pool completed in 2006-2008. The detection rate for adenomas ≤ 5 mm, 6-9 mm, and <10 mm with advanced histology were compared.
RESULTS: In the OC group, 23.2% of patients had at least one adenoma removed; in the CTC screening group, 5.9% of patients had at least one adenoma detected and removed, P<0.001. There were significantly more ≤ 5 mm adenomas (detection rate 0.22, 378/1,700) detected by OC than by CTC (detection rate 0.04, 56/1,307), P<0.001. There were significantly more adenomas 6-9 mm (detection rate 0.12, 204/1,700) detected by OC than by CTC (detection rate 0.05, 67/1,307), with 70 patients with polyps of unknown histology in CTC surveillance, P<0.001. The number of advanced lesions <10 mm detected by OC (15/1,700) compared with CTC (4/1,307) were not significantly different, P=0.06. In the OC group, 27.1% of patients had non-adenomatous polyps removed; in the CTC group, 4.1% of patients had non-adenomatous polyps removed, P<0.001.
CONCLUSIONS: (i) An OC screening program detects and recovers a significant four and a half fold greater number of non-advanced adenomas compared with a CTC screening program. (ii) The primary difference between screening with OC and CTC is the recovery and management of the subcentimeter adenoma.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20842111     DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2010.362

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  5 in total

Review 1.  Evidence review and status update on computed tomography colonography.

Authors:  Darren Boone; Steve Halligan; Stuart A Taylor
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2011-10

2.  Optical colonoscopy and virtual colonoscopy numbers after initiation of a CT colonography program: long term data.

Authors:  Mark Benson; Jeff Pier; Sally Kraft; David Kim; Perry Pickhardt; Jennifer Weiss; Deepak Gopal; Mark Reichelderfer; Patrick Pfau
Journal:  J Gastrointestin Liver Dis       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.008

3.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: a prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units.

Authors:  Romain Coriat; Augustin Lecler; Dominique Lamarque; Jacques Deyra; Hervé Roche; Catherine Nizou; Olivier Berretta; Bruno Mesnard; Martin Bouygues; Alain Soupison; Jean-Luc Monnin; Philippe Podevin; Carole Cassaz; Denis Sautereau; Frédéric Prat; Stanislas Chaussade
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-11       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Can Computed Tomography Colonography Replace Optical Colonoscopy in Detecting Colorectal Lesions?: State of the Art.

Authors:  Alessia Chini; Michele Manigrasso; Grazia Cantore; Rosa Maione; Marco Milone; Francesco Maione; Giovanni Domenico De Palma
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2022-02-24

5.  Korean guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and polyp detection.

Authors:  Bo-In Lee; Sung Pil Hong; Seong-Eun Kim; Se Hyung Kim; Hyun-Soo Kim; Sung Noh Hong; Dong-Hoon Yang; Sung Jae Shin; Suck-Ho Lee; Dong Il Park; Young-Ho Kim; Hyun Jung Kim; Suk-Kyun Yang; Hyo Jong Kim; Hae Jeong Jeon
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2012-03-31
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.