OBJECTIVES: Previous meta-analyses on CT-colonography included both average and high risk individuals, which may overestimate the diagnostic value in screening. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain the value of CT-colonography for screening. METHODS: A search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane. Article selection and critical appraisal was done by two reviewers. INCLUSION CRITERIA: prospective, randomized trials or cohort studies comparing CT-colonography with colonoscopy (≥50 participants), ≥95% average risk participants ≥50 years. Study characteristics and 2 × 2 contingency Tables were recorded. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated per patient and per polyp (≥6 mm, ≥10 mm), using univariate and bivariate analyses. RESULTS: Five of 1,021 studies identified were included, including 4,086 participants (<1% high risk). I(2)-values showed substantial heterogeneity, especially for 6-9 mm polyps and adenomas: 68.1% vs. 78.6% (sensitivity per patient). Estimated sensitivities for patients with polyps or adenomas ≥ 6 mm were 75.9% and 82.9%, corresponding specificities 94.6% and 91.4%. Estimated sensitivities for patients with polyps or adenomas ≥ 10 mm were 83.3% and 87.9%, corresponding specificities 98.7% and 97.6%. Estimated sensitivities per polyp for advanced adenomas ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm were 83.9% and 83.8%. CONCLUSION: Compared to colonoscopy, CT-colonography has a high sensitivity for adenomas ≥ 10 mm. For (advanced) adenomas ≥ 6 mm sensitivity is somewhat lower.
OBJECTIVES: Previous meta-analyses on CT-colonography included both average and high risk individuals, which may overestimate the diagnostic value in screening. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain the value of CT-colonography for screening. METHODS: A search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane. Article selection and critical appraisal was done by two reviewers. INCLUSION CRITERIA: prospective, randomized trials or cohort studies comparing CT-colonography with colonoscopy (≥50 participants), ≥95% average risk participants ≥50 years. Study characteristics and 2 × 2 contingency Tables were recorded. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated per patient and per polyp (≥6 mm, ≥10 mm), using univariate and bivariate analyses. RESULTS: Five of 1,021 studies identified were included, including 4,086 participants (<1% high risk). I(2)-values showed substantial heterogeneity, especially for 6-9 mm polyps and adenomas: 68.1% vs. 78.6% (sensitivity per patient). Estimated sensitivities for patients with polyps or adenomas ≥ 6 mm were 75.9% and 82.9%, corresponding specificities 94.6% and 91.4%. Estimated sensitivities for patients with polyps or adenomas ≥ 10 mm were 83.3% and 87.9%, corresponding specificities 98.7% and 97.6%. Estimated sensitivities per polyp for advanced adenomas ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm were 83.9% and 83.8%. CONCLUSION: Compared to colonoscopy, CT-colonography has a high sensitivity for adenomas ≥ 10 mm. For (advanced) adenomas ≥ 6 mm sensitivity is somewhat lower.
Authors: Donald Steinwachs; Jennifer Dacey Allen; William Eric Barlow; R Paul Duncan; Leonard E Egede; Lawrence S Friedman; Nancy L Keating; Paula Kim; Judith R Lave; Thomas A LaVeist; Roberta B Ness; Robert J Optican; Beth A Virnig Journal: NIH Consens State Sci Statements Date: 2010-02-04
Authors: A Graser; P Stieber; D Nagel; C Schäfer; D Horst; C R Becker; K Nikolaou; A Lottes; S Geisbüsch; H Kramer; A C Wagner; H Diepolder; J Schirra; H J Roth; D Seidel; B Göke; M F Reiser; F T Kolligs Journal: Gut Date: 2008-10-13 Impact factor: 23.059
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: Sangbu An; Kyoung Ho Lee; Young Hoon Kim; Seong Ho Park; Hyun Young Kim; Se Hyung Kim; Nayoung Kim Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Douglas K Rex; David A Johnson; Joseph C Anderson; Phillip S Schoenfeld; Carol A Burke; John M Inadomi Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Ayso H de Vries; Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Shandra Bipat; Roel Truyen; Iwo W O Serlie; Rutger H Cohen; Saskia G C van Elderen; Anneke Heutinck; Oskar Kesselring; Wouter de Monyé; Lambertus te Strake; Tjeerd Wiersma; Jaap Stoker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-03-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: A Venara; C Ridereau-Zins; L Toque; E Cesbron; S Michalak; E Lermite; C Aube; A Hamy Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 2.571
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
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