Literature DB >> 24865308

Detection of extracolonic pathologic findings with CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment of perceived benefits versus harms.

Andrew A Plumb1, Darren Boone, Heather Fitzke, Emma Helbren, Susan Mallett, Shihua Zhu, Guiqing L Yao, Nichola Bell, Alex Ghanouni, Christian von Wagner, Stuart A Taylor, Douglas G Altman, Richard Lilford, Steve Halligan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum rate of false-positive diagnoses that patients and health care professionals were willing to accept in exchange for detection of extracolonic malignancy by using computed tomographic (CT) colonography for colorectal cancer screening.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: After obtaining ethical approval and informed consent, 52 patients and 50 health care professionals undertook two discrete choice experiments where they chose between unrestricted CT colonography that examined intra- and extracolonic organs or CT colonography restricted to the colon, across different scenarios. The first experiment detected one extracolonic malignancy per 600 cases with a false-positive rate varying across scenarios from 0% to 99.8%. One experiment examined radiologic follow-up generated by false-positive diagnoses while the other examined invasive follow-up. Intracolonic performance was identical for both tests. The median tipping point (maximum acceptable false-positive rate for extracolonic findings) was calculated overall and for both groups by bootstrap analysis.
RESULTS: The median tipping point for radiologic follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate greater than 99.8% (interquartile ratio [IQR], 10 to >99.8%). Participants would tolerate at least a 99.8% rate of unnecessary radiologic tests to detect an additional extracolonic malignancy. The median tipping-point for invasive follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate of 10% (IQR, 2 to >99.8%). Tipping points were significantly higher for patients than for health care professionals for both experiments (>99.8 vs 40% for radiologic follow-up and >99.8 vs 5% for invasive follow-up, both P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Patients and health care professionals are willing to tolerate high rates of false-positive diagnoses with CT colonography in exchange for diagnosis of extracolonic malignancy. The actual specificity of screening CT colonography for extracolonic findings in clinical practice is likely to be highly acceptable to both patients and health care professionals. Online supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2014.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24865308     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14131678

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


  8 in total

Review 1.  Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer Using CT Colonography.

Authors:  Manoj Kumar; Brooks D Cash
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-03

2.  Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Rebekah Hall; Antonieta Medina-Lara; Willie Hamilton; Anne E Spencer
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC): a joint guideline from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG).

Authors:  Kevin J Monahan; Michael M Davies; Muti Abulafi; Ayan Banerjea; Brian D Nicholson; Ramesh Arasaradnam; Neil Barker; Sally Benton; Richard Booth; David Burling; Rachel Victoria Carten; Nigel D'Souza; James Edward East; Jos Kleijnen; Michael Machesney; Maria Pettman; Jenny Pipe; Lance Saker; Linda Sharp; James Stephenson; Robert Jc Steele
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 31.793

4.  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

5.  Indeterminate but Likely Unimportant Extracolonic Findings at Screening CT Colonography (C-RADS Category E3): 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:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  People's willingness to accept overdetection in cancer screening: population survey.

Authors:  Ann Van den Bruel; Caroline Jones; Yaling Yang; Jason Oke; Paul Hewitson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-03-03

7.  Preferences for portable ultrasound devices: a discrete choice experiment among abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance patients and general ultrasound patients in England.

Authors:  Caron Parsons; Kamran Ahmad Khan; Joshua Pink; Alice Verran; Frances Griffiths; Charles E Hutchinson; Stavros Petrou
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.