Literature DB >> 22586008

Diagnostic accuracy of laxative-free computed tomographic colonography for detection of adenomatous polyps in asymptomatic adults: a prospective evaluation.

Michael E Zalis1, Michael A Blake, Wenli Cai, Peter F Hahn, Elkan F Halpern, Imrana G Kazam, Myles Keroack, Cordula Magee, Janne J Näppi, Rocio Perez-Johnston, John R Saltzman, Abhinav Vij, Judy Yee, Hiroyuki Yoshida.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colon screening by optical colonoscopy (OC) or computed tomographic colonography (CTC) requires a laxative bowel preparation, which inhibits screening participation.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of detecting adenomas 6 mm or larger and patient experience of laxative-free, computer-aided CTC.
DESIGN: Prospective test comparison of laxative-free CTC and OC. The CTC included electronic cleansing and computer-aided detection. Optical colonoscopy examinations were initially blinded to CTC results, which were subsequently revealed during colonoscope withdrawal; this method permitted reexamination to resolve discrepant findings. Unblinded OC served as a reference standard. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01200303)
SETTING: Multicenter ambulatory imaging and endoscopy centers. PARTICIPANTS: 605 adults aged 50 to 85 years at average to moderate risk for colon cancer. MEASUREMENTS: Per-patient sensitivity and specificity of CTC and first-pass OC for detecting adenomas at thresholds of 10 mm or greater, 8 mm or greater, and 6 mm or greater; per-lesion sensitivity and survey data describing patient experience with preparations and examinations.
RESULTS: For adenomas 10 mm or larger, per-patient sensitivity of CTC was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.99) and specificity was 0.85 (CI, 0.82 to 0.88); sensitivity of OC was 0.95 (CI, 0.77 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.89 (CI, 0.86 to 0.91). Sensitivity of CTC was 0.70 (CI, 0.53 to 0.83) for adenomas 8 mm or larger and 0.59 (CI, 0.47 to 0.70) for those 6 mm or larger; sensitivity of OC for adenomas 8 mm or larger was 0.88 (CI, 0.73 to 0.96) and 0.76 (CI, 0.64 to 0.85) for those 6 mm or larger. The specificity of OC at the threshold of 8 mm or larger was 0.91 and at 6 mm or larger was 0.94. Specificity for OC was greater than that for CTC, which was 0.86 at the threshold of 8 mm or larger and 0.88 at 6 mm or larger (P= 0.02). Reported participant experience for comfort and difficulty of examination preparation was better with CTC than OC. LIMITATIONS: There were 3 CTC readers. The survey instrument was not independently validated.
CONCLUSION: Computed tomographic colonography was accurate in detecting adenomas 10 mm or larger but less so for smaller lesions. Patient experience was better with laxative-free CTC. These results suggest a possible role for laxative-free CTC as an alternate screening method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22586008     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-10-201205150-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  38 in total

1.  Patients' experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial.

Authors:  Lapo Sali; Leonardo Ventura; Grazia Grazzini; Alessandra Borgheresi; Silvia Delsanto; Massimo Falchini; Beatrice Mallardi; Paola Mantellini; Stefano Milani; Stefano Pallanti; Marco Zappa; Mario Mascalchi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Progress in Fully Automated Abdominal CT Interpretation.

Authors:  Ronald M Summers
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  Colonoscopy: the current king of the hill in the USA.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Can the adenoma detection rate reliably identify low-performing endoscopists? Results of a modeling study.

Authors:  Sameer D Saini; Philip Schoenfeld; Sandeep Vijan
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-03-02       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS): benchmark values from a clinical screening program.

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

6.  Bowel cleansing before CT colonography: comparison between two minimal-preparation regimens.

Authors:  F Iafrate; M Iannitti; M Ciolina; P Baldassari; A Pichi; A Laghi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-08-23       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Perforation rate in CT colonography: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Davide Bellini; Marco Rengo; Carlo Nicola De Cecco; Franco Iafrate; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Computed tomography colonography in 2014: an update on technique and indications.

Authors:  Andrea Laghi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Potentially Important Extracolonic Findings at Screening CT Colonography: Incidence and Outcomes Data From a Clinical Screening Program.

Authors:  B Dustin Pooler; David H Kim; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.