François Porté1, Mallikarjuna Uppara2, George Malietzis2, Omar Faiz2, Steve Halligan3, Thanos Athanasiou4, David Burling5. 1. Department of Radiology, St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK. 2. Surgical Epidemiology, Trials and Outcome Centre (SETOC) St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK. 3. Department of Radiology, University College London, London, UK. 4. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK. 5. Department of Radiology, St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK. dburling@nhs.net.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review primary research evidence investigating performance of CT colonography for colorectal cancer surveillance. The financial impact of using CT colonography for surveillance was also estimated. METHODS: We identified primary studies of CT colonography for surveillance of colorectal cancer patients. A summary ROC curve was constructed. Inter-study heterogeneity was explored using the I2 value. Financial impact was estimated for a theoretical cohort of patients, based on Cancer Research UK statistics. RESULTS: Seven studies provided data on 880 patients. Five of seven studies (765 patients) were included for qualitative analysis. Sensitivity of CT colonography for detection of anastomotic recurrence was 95 % (95 % CI 62 - 100), specificity 100 % (95 % CI 75 - 100) and sensitivity for metachronous cancers was 100 %. No statistical heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 0 %). We estimated that CT colonography as a 'single test' alternative to colonoscopy and standard CT for surveillance would potentially save €20,785,232 (£14,803,404) for an annual cohort of UK patients. CONCLUSION: CT colonography compares favourably to colonoscopy for detection of anastomotic recurrence and metachronous colorectal cancer, and appears financially beneficial. These findings should be considered alongside limitations of small patient numbers and high clinical heterogeneity between studies. KEY POINTS: • CT colonography compares favourably to colonoscopy/standard CT for colorectal cancer surveillance. • CT colonography offers single-test luminal, serosal and extra-colonic assessment. • CT colonography is a potentially cost-saving alternative to standard surveillance protocols.
PURPOSE: To review primary research evidence investigating performance of CT colonography for colorectal cancer surveillance. The financial impact of using CT colonography for surveillance was also estimated. METHODS: We identified primary studies of CT colonography for surveillance of colorectal cancerpatients. A summary ROC curve was constructed. Inter-study heterogeneity was explored using the I2 value. Financial impact was estimated for a theoretical cohort of patients, based on Cancer Research UK statistics. RESULTS: Seven studies provided data on 880 patients. Five of seven studies (765 patients) were included for qualitative analysis. Sensitivity of CT colonography for detection of anastomotic recurrence was 95 % (95 % CI 62 - 100), specificity 100 % (95 % CI 75 - 100) and sensitivity for metachronous cancers was 100 %. No statistical heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 0 %). We estimated that CT colonography as a 'single test' alternative to colonoscopy and standard CT for surveillance would potentially save €20,785,232 (£14,803,404) for an annual cohort of UK patients. CONCLUSION: CT colonography compares favourably to colonoscopy for detection of anastomotic recurrence and metachronous colorectal cancer, and appears financially beneficial. These findings should be considered alongside limitations of small patient numbers and high clinical heterogeneity between studies. KEY POINTS: • CT colonography compares favourably to colonoscopy/standard CT for colorectal cancer surveillance. • CT colonography offers single-test luminal, serosal and extra-colonic assessment. • CT colonography is a potentially cost-saving alternative to standard surveillance protocols.
Authors: Alexander G Heriot; Christopher M Byrne; Peter Lee; Bruce Dobbs; Henry Tilney; Michael J Solomon; John Mackay; Frank Frizelle Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2008-01-19 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: J G Fletcher; C Daniel Johnson; William R Krueger; David A Ahlquist; Heidi Nelson; Duane Ilstrup; William Scott Harmsen; Kay E Corcoran Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Steve Halligan; Katherine Wooldrage; Edward Dadswell; Urvi Shah; Ines Kralj-Hans; Christian von Wagner; Omar Faiz; Julian Teare; Rob Edwards; Clive Kay; Guiqing Yao; Richard J Lilford; Dion Morton; Jane Wardle; Wendy Atkin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Pamela B Mangu; Patrick J Flynn; Larissa Korde; Charles L Loprinzi; Bruce D Minsky; Nicholas J Petrelli; Kim Ryan; Deborah H Schrag; Sandra L Wong; Al B Benson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Wendy Atkin; Edward Dadswell; Kate Wooldrage; Ines Kralj-Hans; Christian von Wagner; Rob Edwards; Guiqing Yao; Clive Kay; David Burling; Omar Faiz; Julian Teare; Richard J Lilford; Dion Morton; Jane Wardle; Steve Halligan Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: John N Primrose; Rafael Perera; Alastair Gray; Peter Rose; Alice Fuller; Andrea Corkhill; Steve George; David Mant Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Emanuele Neri; Steve Halligan; Mikael Hellström; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Daniele Regge; Jaap Stoker; Stuart Taylor; Andrea Laghi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-09-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David S Weinberg; Perry J Pickhardt; David H Bruining; Kristin Edwards; Joel G Fletcher; Marc J Gollub; Eileen M Keenan; Sonia S Kupfer; Tianyu Li; Sam J Lubner; Arnold J Markowitz; Eric A Ross Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: A Dehmoobad Sharifabadi; D A Korevaar; T A McGrath; N van Es; R A Frank; L Cherpak; W Dang; J P Salameh; F Nguyen; C Stanley; M D F McInnes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M Alabousi; A Alabousi; T A McGrath; K D Cobey; B Budhram; R A Frank; F Nguyen; J P Salameh; A Dehmoobad Sharifabadi; M D F McInnes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Janeth I Sanchez; Veena Shankaran; Joseph M Unger; Margaret M Madeleine; Noah Espinoza; Beti Thompson Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Matthew D Rutter; James East; Colin J Rees; Neil Cripps; James Docherty; Sunil Dolwani; Philip V Kaye; Kevin J Monahan; Marco R Novelli; Andrew Plumb; Brian P Saunders; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Damian J M Tolan; Sophie Whyte; Stewart Bonnington; Alison Scope; Ruth Wong; Barbara Hibbert; John Marsh; Billie Moores; Amanda Cross; Linda Sharp Journal: Gut Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 31.793
Authors: David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Davide Bellini; David Burling; Giovanni Cappello; Cristina Carretero; Evelien Dekker; Rami Eliakim; Margriet de Haan; Michal F Kaminski; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Andrea Laghi; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Sebastian Manuel Milluzzo; Martina Morrin; Deirdre McNamara; Emanuele Neri; Silvia Pecere; Mathieu Pioche; Andrew Plumb; Emanuele Rondonotti; Manon Cw Spaander; Stuart Taylor; Ignacio Fernandez-Urien; Jeanin E van Hooft; Jaap Stoker; Daniele Regge Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Kristin Edwards; David H Bruining; Marc Gollub; Sonja Kupfer; Sam J Lubner; David H Kim; Eric Ross; Eileen Keenan; David S Weinberg Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 4.585