Literature DB >> 22361006

The National CT Colonography Trial: assessment of accuracy in participants 65 years of age and older.

C Daniel Johnson1, 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.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To conduct post-hoc analysis of National CT Colonography Trial data and compare the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) colonography in participants younger than 65 years with those in participants aged 65 years and older.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 2600 asymptomatic participants recruited at 15 centers for the trial, 497 were 65 years of age or older. Approval of this HIPAA-compliant study was obtained from the institutional review board of each site, and informed consent was obtained from each subject. Radiologists certified in CT colonography reported lesions 5 mm in diameter or larger. Screening detection of large (≥10-mm) histologically confirmed colorectal neoplasia was the primary end point; screening detection of smaller (6-9-mm) colorectal neoplasia was a secondary end point. The differences in sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography in the two age cohorts (age < 65 years and age ≥ 65 years) were estimated with bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: Complete data were available for 477 participants 65 years of age or older (among 2531 evaluable participants). Prevalence of adenomas 1 cm or larger for the older participants versus the younger participants was 6.9% (33 of 477) versus 3.7% (76 of 2054) (P < .004). For large neoplasms, mean estimates for CT colonography sensitivity and specificity among the older cohort were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.644, 0.944) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.779, 0.883), respectively. For large neoplasms in the younger group, CT colonography sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.837, 0.967) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.816, 0.899), respectively. Per-polyp sensitivity for large neoplasms for the older and younger populations was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.578, 0.869) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.717, 0.924), respectively. For the older and younger groups, per-participant sensitivity was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.565, 0.854) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.745, 0.882) for detecting adenomas 6 mm in diameter or larger.
CONCLUSION: For most measures of diagnostic performance and in most subsets, the difference between senior-aged participants and those younger than 65 years was not statistically significant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22361006      PMCID: PMC3329269          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12102177

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  6 in total

1.  Angioplasty and stenting of the cervical carotid artery with embolic protection of the cerebral circulation.

Authors: 
Journal:  Technol Eval Cent Assess Program Exec Summ       Date:  2007-06

Review 2.  Incidental extracolonic findings on CT colonography: the impending deluge and its implications.

Authors:  Lincoln L Berland
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.532

3.  CT colonography: performance and program outcome measures in an older screening population.

Authors:  David H Kim; Perry J Pickhardt; Meghan E Hanson; J Louis Hinshaw
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers.

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

5.  Unsuspected extracolonic findings at screening CT colonography: clinical and economic impact.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Meghan E Hanson; David J Vanness; Justin Y Lo; David H Kim; Andrew J Taylor; Thomas C Winter; J Louis Hinshaw
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology.

Authors:  Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2008-03-05       Impact factor: 508.702

  6 in total
  8 in total

1.  Dual-energy CT characteristics of colon and rectal cancer allows differentiation from stool by dual-source CT.

Authors:  İlknur Özdeniz; İlkay S İdilman; Seyfettin Köklü; Erhan Hamaloğlu; Mustafa Özmen; Deniz Akata; Muşturay Karçaaltıncaba
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.630

2.  Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Nina Gupta; Sonia S Kupfer; Andrew M Davis
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Quantitative radiology: automated measurement of polyp volume in computed tomography colonography using Hessian matrix-based shape extraction and volume growing.

Authors:  Mark L Epstein; Piotr R Obara; Yisong Chen; Junchi Liu; Amin Zarshenas; Nazanin Makkinejad; Abraham H Dachman; Kenji Suzuki
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2015-10

Review 4.  Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; Theodore R Levin; David Lieberman; Douglas J Robertson
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Measurement of smaller colon polyp in CT colonography images using morphological image processing.

Authors:  K N Manjunath; P C Siddalingaswamy; G K Prabhu
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 6.  Computed tomography colonography: emerging evidence to further support clinical effectiveness.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Curr Opin Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.287

7.  Polyp Resection and Removal Procedures: Insights From the 2017 Digestive Disease Week.

Authors:  Carol Burke; Vivek Kaul; Heiko Pohl
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2017-09

8.  Recent Advance in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: What's New?

Authors:  Sung Noh Hong; Sun-Hyung Kang; Hyun Joo Jang; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2018-07-31
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.