David H Kim1, B Dustin Pooler, Jennifer M Weiss, Perry J Pickhardt. 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. dkim@uwhealth.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the 5-year incidence of clinically presenting colorectal cancers following a negative CT colonography (CTC) screening examination, as few patient outcome data regarding a negative CTC screening result exist. METHODS: Negative CTC screening patients (n = 1,050) in the University of Wisconsin Health system over a 14-month period were included. An electronic medical record (EMR) review was undertaken, encompassing provider, colonoscopy, imaging and histopathology reports. Incident colorectal cancers and other important GI tumours were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 1,050 cohort (mean [±SD] age 56.9 ± 7.4 years), 39 (3.7%) patients were excluded owing to lack of follow-up within our system beyond the initial screening CTC. The remaining 1,011 patients were followed for an average of 4.73 ± 1.15 years. One incident colorectal adenocarcinoma represented a crude cancer incidence of 0.2 cancers per 1,000 patient years. EMR revealed 14 additional patients with clinically important GI tumours including: advanced adenomas (n = 11), appendiceal goblet cell carcinoid (n = 1), appendiceal mucinous adenoma (n = 1) and metastatic ileocolonic carcinoid (n = 1). All positive patients including the incident carcinoma are alive at the time of review. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically presenting colorectal adenocarcinoma is rare in the 5 years following negative screening CTC, suggesting that current strategies, including non-reporting of diminutive lesions, are appropriate. KEY POINTS: • CT colonography (CTC) screening is increasingly used to identify potential colorectal cancer. • Clinically presenting cancers are rare for 5 years following negative CTC screening. • The practice of setting a 6 mm polyp size threshold seems safe. • An interval of 5 years for routine CTC screening is appropriate.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the 5-year incidence of clinically presenting colorectal cancers following a negative CT colonography (CTC) screening examination, as few patient outcome data regarding a negative CTC screening result exist. METHODS: Negative CTC screening patients (n = 1,050) in the University of Wisconsin Health system over a 14-month period were included. An electronic medical record (EMR) review was undertaken, encompassing provider, colonoscopy, imaging and histopathology reports. Incident colorectal cancers and other important GI tumours were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 1,050 cohort (mean [±SD] age 56.9 ± 7.4 years), 39 (3.7%) patients were excluded owing to lack of follow-up within our system beyond the initial screening CTC. The remaining 1,011 patients were followed for an average of 4.73 ± 1.15 years. One incident colorectal adenocarcinoma represented a crude cancer incidence of 0.2 cancers per 1,000 patient years. EMR revealed 14 additional patients with clinically important GI tumours including: advanced adenomas (n = 11), appendiceal goblet cell carcinoid (n = 1), appendiceal mucinous adenoma (n = 1) and metastatic ileocolonic carcinoid (n = 1). All positive patients including the incident carcinoma are alive at the time of review. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically presenting colorectal adenocarcinoma is rare in the 5 years following negative screening CTC, suggesting that current strategies, including non-reporting of diminutive lesions, are appropriate. KEY POINTS: • CT colonography (CTC) screening is increasingly used to identify potential colorectal cancer. • Clinically presenting cancers are rare for 5 years following negative CTC screening. • The practice of setting a 6 mm polyp size threshold seems safe. • An interval of 5 years for routine CTC screening is appropriate.
Authors: Michael E Zalis; Matthew A Barish; J Richard Choi; Abraham H Dachman; Helen M Fenlon; Joseph T Ferrucci; Seth N Glick; Andrea Laghi; Michael Macari; Elizabeth G McFarland; Martina M Morrin; Perry J Pickhardt; Jorge Soto; Judy Yee Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: D S Alberts; M E Martínez; D J Roe; J M Guillén-Rodríguez; J R Marshall; J B van Leeuwen; M E Reid; C Ritenbaugh; P A Vargas; A B Bhattacharyya; D L Earnest; R E Sampliner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-04-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Douglas J Robertson; E Robert Greenberg; Michael Beach; Robert S Sandler; Dennis Ahnen; Robert W Haile; Carol A Burke; Dale C Snover; Robert S Bresalier; Gail McKeown-Eyssen; Jack S Mandel; John H Bond; Rosalind U Van Stolk; Robert W Summers; Richard Rothstein; Timothy R Church; Bernard F Cole; Tim Byers; Leila Mott; John A Baron Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: D K Rex; O W Cummings; D J Helper; T V Nowak; J M McGill; G Z Chiao; P Y Kwo; K T Gottlieb; S O Ikenberry; F G Gress; G A Lehman; L J Born Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Andrew J Taylor; David H Kim; Mark Reichelderfer; Deepak V Gopal; Patrick R Pfau Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-09-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ajay Pabby; Robert E Schoen; Joel L Weissfeld; Randall Burt; James W Kikendall; Peter Lance; Moshe Shike; Elaine Lanza; Arthur Schatzkin Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: A I Neugut; J S Jacobson; H Ahsan; J Santos; G C Garbowski; K A Forde; M R Treat; J Waye Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Bryan Dustin Pooler; David H Kim; Cesare Hassan; Kristina A Matkowskyj; Richard B Halberg Journal: Gastroenterol Clin North Am Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 3.806
Authors: B Dustin Pooler; David H Kim; Vu P Lam; Elizabeth S Burnside; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: B Dustin Pooler; David H Kim; Jennifer M Weiss; Kristina A Matkowskyj; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 11.105