| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Gastrointestinal Imaging |
1 From the Departments of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (J.T.E., N.M.F., G.M.F.) and Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (R.M.M., C.W., D.M.), Royal Perth Hospital, Box X2213 GPO Perth, Western Australia 6000; and Departments of Public Health (L.F.), Medicine (G.M.F.), and Surgery (R.M.M.), University of Western Australia, Perth. Supported by the Health Department of Western Australia. Received November 3, 2002; revision requested January 13, 2003; final revision received June 3; accepted June 25. Address correspondence to J.T.E. (e-mail: john.t.edwards@health.wa.gov.au).
PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic (CT) colonography as a screening tool for average-risk asymptomatic subjects with regard to participation, acceptability, and safety.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT colonography for colorectal neoplasia screening was offered to 2,000 subjects aged 50–54 and 65–69 years. Only asymptomatic subjects at average risk of colorectal neoplasia were enrolled. Participants underwent CT colonography followed by colonoscopy if CT colonography findings showed any polyps. Acceptability was measured with a 100-point (0, most favorable; 100, least favorable) visual analogue scale (VAS). 
2 statistic was used to compare participation rates among subgroups. Safety of CT colonography was evaluated by recording all important adverse events.
RESULTS: A total of 1,452 subjects were eligible for screening. The adjusted participation rate was 28.4%. Participation was higher in younger subjects and in those from a high socioeconomic region. Major reasons for nonparticipation were insufficient time and perceived good health. Median VAS scores for pain, general satisfaction, embarrassment, and willingness to repeat screening were 13, 6, 8, and 5, respectively. Most subjects found CT colonography better than (60%) or same as (32%) expected. Ninety-three (27.4%) of 340 subjects were referred for colonoscopy, with polyps found in 67 (positive predictive value, 0.73). By adopting criteria that a positive finding at CT colonography is that of a single polyp larger than 5 mm or multiple polyps larger than 2 mm, 14% of CT examinations would have led to colonoscopy; 5.7% of CT findings were false-positive, with no significant impairment in large polyp detection. There were no important adverse events related to CT colonography, although four subjects had syncope or presyncope related to bowel preparation.
CONCLUSION: Community-based colorectal neoplasia screening with CT colonography was accompanied by a participation rate that compares favorably with that of similar screening programs. CT colonography was highly acceptable to participants.
© RSNA, 2003
Index terms: Colon, CT, 75.12115, 75.12117, 75.12119 • Colon neoplasms, 75.3111, 75.3113 • Computed tomography (CT), image processing, 75.12117, 75.12119
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. Regge, C. Laudi, G. Galatola, P. Della Monica, L. Bonelli, G. Angelelli, R. Asnaghi, B. Barbaro, C. Bartolozzi, D. Bielen, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomographic Colonography for the Detection of Advanced Neoplasia in Individuals at Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer JAMA, June 17, 2009; 301(23): 2453 - 2461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. P. Whitlock, J. S. Lin, E. Liles, T. L. Beil, and R. Fu Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Targeted, Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, November 4, 2008; 149(9): 638 - 658. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. E. Baker, L. Bogoni, N. A. Obuchowski, C. Dass, R. M. Kendzierski, E. M. Remer, D. M. Einstein, P. Cathier, A. Jerebko, S. Lakare, et al. Computer-aided Detection of Colorectal Polyps: Can It Improve Sensitivity of Less-Experienced Readers? Preliminary Findings Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 140 - 149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Florie, E. Birnie, R. E. van Gelder, S. Jensch, B. Haberkorn, J. F. Bartelsman, A. van der Sluys Veer, P. Snel, V. P. M. van der Hulst, G. J. Bonsel, et al. MR Colonography with Limited Bowel Preparation: Patient Acceptance Compared with That of Full-Preparation Colonoscopy Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 150 - 159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Burling, S. Halligan, A. Slater, M. J. Noakes, and S. A. Taylor Potentially Serious Adverse Events at CT Colonography in Symptomatic Patients: National Survey of the United Kingdom Radiology, May 1, 2006; 239(2): 464 - 471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P Veit, C Kuhle, T Beyer, H Kuehl, C U Herborn, G Borsch, H Stergar, J Barkhausen, A Bockisch, and G Antoch Whole body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) tumour staging with integrated PET/CT colonography: technical feasibility and first experiences in patients with colorectal cancer Gut, January 1, 2006; 55(1): 68 - 73. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Iannaccone, C. Catalano, F. Mangiapane, T. Murakami, A. Lamazza, E. Fiori, A. Schillaci, D. Marin, I. Nofroni, M. Hori, et al. Colorectal Polyps: Detection with Low-Dose Multi-Detector Row Helical CT Colonography versus Two Sequential Colonoscopies Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 927 - 937. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. J. Heitman, B. J. Manns, R. J. Hilsden, A. Fong, S. Dean, and J. Romagnuolo Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening Can. Med. Assoc. J., October 11, 2005; 173(8): 877 - 881. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. T. Ferrucci Colonoscopy: Virtual and Optical--Another Look, Another View Radiology, April 1, 2005; 235(1): 13 - 16. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 First Community-Based CT Colonography Screening Study Journal Watch Gastroenterology, March 2, 2004; 2004(302): 5 - 5. [Full Text]
|
|
Read all eLetters
