Search

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosed among men and women and the second leading cause of death from cancer. CRC largely can be prevented by the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps, and survival is significantly better when CRC is diagnosed while still localized. In 2006 to 2007, the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology came together to develop consensus guidelines for the detection of adenomatous polyps and CRC in asymptomatic average-risk adults. In this update of each organization's guidelines, screening tests are grouped into those that primarily detect cancer early and those that can detect cancer early and also can detect adenomatous polyps, thus providing a greater potential for prevention through polypectomy. When possible, clinicians should make patients aware of the full range of screening options, but at a minimum they should be prepared to offer patients a choice between a screening test that primarily is effective at early cancer detection and a screening test that is effective at both early cancer detection and cancer prevention through the detection and removal of polyps. It is the strong opinion of these 3 organizations that colon cancer prevention should be the primary goal of screening.

Background & Aims: Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) was first described more than a decade ago. Recent advances in imaging hardware and software and results of clinical trials based on new methods for performing and interpreting images suggest that CTC may now be assessed as a method for colorectal cancer screening., Methods: The Research Policy Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association assembled a task force to review the results of recent clinical trials and quantitative mathematical models pertaining to CTC. The goal of the task force was to assess the current knowledge about CTC and to evaluate the issues that will define its impact., Results: Limitations in evaluating the current state of CTC technology include a wide variation in results of clinical trials. There are as yet insufficient data on the use of CTC in routine clinical practice. Limitations in the use of quantitative mathematical models make predictions based on such models of limited value. The cancer risk and therefore clinical importance of small colorectal polyps detected by CTC and/or nonpolypoid neoplasia not detected by CTC remains largely unknown., Conclusions: CTC is attractive as a colon imaging modality. It is therefore anticipated that CTC will have a significant impact on the practice of gastroenterology. However, the magnitude of the impact is currently unknown. Whether the ongoing implementation of CTC will increase or decrease the number of referrals for colonoscopy or shift the procedure from colorectal cancer screening to therapeutic interventions (e.g., polypectomy) is unknown at the present time. Multidisciplinary collaboration between gastroenterology and radiology to promote effective implementation and ongoing quality assurance will be important.

Background & Aims: No multicenter study has been reported evaluating the performance and interobserver variability of computerized tomographic colonography. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of computerized tomographic colonography for detecting clinically important colorectal neoplasia (polyps >or=10 mm in diameter) in a multi-institutional study., Methods: A retrospective study was developed from 341 patients who had computerized tomographic colonography and colonoscopy among 8 medical centers. Colonoscopy and pathology reports provided the standard. A random sample of 117 patients, stratified by criterion standard, was requested. Ninety-three patients were included (47% with polyps >or=10 mm; mean age, 62 years; 56% men; 84% white; 40% reported colorectal symptoms; 74% at increased risk for colorectal cancer). Eighteen radiologists blinded to the criterion standard interpreted computerized tomography colonography examinations, each using 2 of 3 different software display platforms., Results: The average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for identifying patients with at least 1 lesion >or=10 mm was 0.80 (95% lower confidence bound, 0.74). The average sensitivity and specificity were 75% (95% lower confidence bound, 68%) and 73% (95% lower confidence bound, 66%), respectively. Per-polyp sensitivity was 75%. A trend was observed for better performance with more observer experience. There was no difference in performance across software display platforms., Conclusions: Computerized tomographic colonography performance compared favorably with reported performance of fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema. A prospective study evaluating the performance of computerized tomography colonography in a screening population is indicated.

Background & Aims: This study used a low lesion prevalence population reflective of the screening setting to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of computerized tomographic (CT) colonography for detection of colorectal polyps., Methods: This prospective, blinded study comprised 703 asymptomatic persons at higher-than-average risk for colorectal cancer who underwent CT colonography followed by same-day colonoscopy. Two of 3 experienced readers interpreted each CT colonography examination., Results: Overall lesion prevalence for adenomas >/=1 cm in diameter was 5%. Seventy percent of all lesions were proximal to the descending colon. With colonoscopy serving as the gold standard, CT colonography detected 34%, 32%, 73%, and 63% of the 59 polyps >/=1 cm for readers 1, 2, 3, and double-reading, respectively; and 35%, 29%, 57%, and 54% of the 94 polyps 5-9 mm for readers 1, 2, 3, and double-reading, respectively. Specificity for CT colonography ranged from 95% to 98% and 86% to 95% for >1 cm and 5-9-mm polyps, respectively. Interobserver variability was high for CT colonography with kappa statistic values ranging from -0.67 to 0.89., Conclusions: In a low prevalence setting, polyp detection rates at CT colonography are well below those at colonoscopy. These rates are less than previous reports based largely on high lesion prevalence cohorts. High interobserver variability warrants further investigation but may be due to the low prevalence of polyps in this cohort and the high impact on total sensitivity of each missed polyp. Specificity, based on large numbers, is high and exhibits excellent agreement among observers.

Background & Aims: To assess the prevalence and spectrum of extracolonic findings in a screening population undergoing computed tomography colonography (CTC), and to evaluate the short-term direct medical costs incurred from subsequent radiologic follow-up evaluation., Methods: Six hundred and eighty-one asymptomatic patients undergoing colonoscopy screening consented to a CTC examination. Extracolonic CT findings were classified into high, medium, and low importance. Clinical and radiologic follow-up, missed lesions, and outcomes were assessed by chart review (time interval, 410-1513 days; median, 913 days). Short-term direct medical costs of radiologic follow-up were determined based on Medicare 2002 reimbursement rates., Results: Extracolonic findings were found commonly. These were categorized as high clinical importance in 71 (10%) individuals, as medium importance in 183 individuals (27%), and as low importance in 341 individuals (50%). Subsequent medical or surgical interventions resulted from these findings in 9 of the 681 patients (1.3%). Costs of subsequent radiologic follow-up studies were calculated as $23,380.59 (average added costs per CTC examination $34.33)., Conclusions: CTC commonly detects extracolonic findings that can be considered clinically important when applied to an asymptomatic screening population. Although such incidental findings add benefit to the screening intervention, moderate incremental costs are incurred based on additional radiologic procedures generated during short-term follow-up.