Michio Taya1,2, Cody McHargue3, Zina J Ricci4, Milana Flusberg4, Stefanie Weinstein3,5, Judy Yee4. 1. Department of Radiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA. michio.taya@virginiamason.org. 2. Graduate Medical Education, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA. michio.taya@virginiamason.org. 3. Department of Radiology, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA. 5. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes between screening and diagnostic CT colonography (CTC) populations. METHODS: 388 consecutive patients (369 men, 19 women; mean ± SD age 67.8 ± 10 years) who underwent first-time CTC (4/2011-4/2017) at a Veteran's Affairs Medical Center were divided into screening (asymptomatic) or diagnostic (symptomatic) cohorts based on CTC indication. CTC reporting and data system E-scores for extracolonic findings were retrospectively assigned based on prospective CTC radiologic reports. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the association between E-scores and CTC indication. Electronic medical records of all patients with E3 or E4 scores were reviewed (median follow-up 2.8 years) to determine clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 68% (262/388) underwent screening and 32% (126/388) diagnostic CTC. 7.2% (28/388) had extracolonic findings considered potentially significant (E4), 4.4% (17/388) had indeterminate but likely unimportant findings (E3), and 88.4% (347/388) had normal or unimportant findings (E1 or E2). E-scores were not significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC when adjusted for age, gender, and prior imaging (p = 0.44). 4.6% (12/262) of patients with E3/E4 findings in the screening cohort demonstrated clinically significant outcomes, compared with 4.0% (5/126) in the diagnostic cohort, including a total of three extracolonic malignancies (0.8%) and three abdominal aortic aneurysms (0.8%). 4.6% (18/388) underwent follow-up imaging studies to confirm a benign outcome after detection of a category E3/E4 finding. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC populations.
PURPOSE: To compare the distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes between screening and diagnostic CT colonography (CTC) populations. METHODS: 388 consecutive patients (369 men, 19 women; mean ± SD age 67.8 ± 10 years) who underwent first-time CTC (4/2011-4/2017) at a Veteran's Affairs Medical Center were divided into screening (asymptomatic) or diagnostic (symptomatic) cohorts based on CTC indication. CTC reporting and data system E-scores for extracolonic findings were retrospectively assigned based on prospective CTC radiologic reports. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the association between E-scores and CTC indication. Electronic medical records of all patients with E3 or E4 scores were reviewed (median follow-up 2.8 years) to determine clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 68% (262/388) underwent screening and 32% (126/388) diagnostic CTC. 7.2% (28/388) had extracolonic findings considered potentially significant (E4), 4.4% (17/388) had indeterminate but likely unimportant findings (E3), and 88.4% (347/388) had normal or unimportant findings (E1 or E2). E-scores were not significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC when adjusted for age, gender, and prior imaging (p = 0.44). 4.6% (12/262) of patients with E3/E4 findings in the screening cohort demonstrated clinically significant outcomes, compared with 4.0% (5/126) in the diagnostic cohort, including a total of three extracolonic malignancies (0.8%) and three abdominal aortic aneurysms (0.8%). 4.6% (18/388) underwent follow-up imaging studies to confirm a benign outcome after detection of a category E3/E4 finding. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC populations.
Authors: Ganesh R Veerappan; Mazer R Ally; Jong-Ho R Choi; Jennifer S Pak; Corinne Maydonovitch; Roy K H Wong Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: B Dustin Pooler; Mark J Baumel; Brooks D Cash; Fouad J Moawad; Mark S Riddle; Amy M Patrick; Mark Damiano; Matthew H Lee; David H Kim; Alejandro Muñoz del Rio; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Brooks D Cash; Mark S Riddle; Ishan Bhattacharya; Duncan Barlow; Donald Jensen; Nicolas Moya del Pino; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272