Computed tomographic colonography (<scp>CTC</scp>); colorectal cancer diagnosis with <scp>CTC</scp> in an <scp>A</scp>uckland population

Moore, Helen; Dodd, Nicholas

doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12062

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies around the world have shown approximately 50% of CTCs having extra‐colonic findings, with increased frequency for older population, and our finding confirms this. More importantly we found that 9.9% of CTCs led to further follow up for potentially important extra‐colonic findings which is comparable with the reported rates in the literature ranging from 6–16% …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The referral rate from CTC to colonoscopy in this symptomatic cohort was 16.9% which is higher than the estimated rates of 10.7% and 11.5% reported in other studies . This can be attributed to actual high cancer or polyp prevalence in this study population but also contributed by moderate number of extra referrals for false positive medium sized polyps.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retrospective analysis of computed tomographic colonography in a rural hospital

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The aims of this study were to investigate the diagnostic performance of computed tomography colonography (CTC) performed in a rural secondary hospital, and to describe the local pattern of CTC service provision. Method: A single site, retrospective observational analysis was conducted for all patients undergoing CTC during the 12-month period from 1st of January to 31st of December 2014 with comparison to available colonoscopy. Results: There were 639 CTCs performed during the 12-months period. The average time from referral to performance of CTC scan was 21.3 days. The diagnostic yield of CTC for CRC was 5.8%; and for large polyps ≥10 mm was 8.0%. The sensitivity and specificity of CTC for detecting CRC were 97.1% and 88.2% respectively. The most predictive symptoms for finding colorectal lesions were rectal bleeding and anaemia. The referral rate from CTC to colonoscopy was 16.9%. 63 patients (9.9%) had follow up recommendations made in their reports due to extracolonic findings. Conclusion: Computed tomography colonography performed in a rural secondary hospital provided sufficient sensitivity to detect large polyps or CRC. The specificity for CRC was lower than reported figures in the literature. Technical issue of CTC performance due to poor insufflation techniques was identified as a main contributing factor reducing CTC accuracy. CTCs were performed with acceptable waiting time and showed high overall diagnostic yield for colorectal neoplasm in a rural hospital.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

Retrospective analysis of computed tomographic colonography in a rural hospital

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Characteristics of included studies 30,31,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] are shown in table 1. Most were retrospective (nine studies 33,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] ) and done at a single centre (nine studies 33,[35][36][37][38][39][40]42 38 all patients with post-test colorectal cancer were included, rather than only those having CT colonography. The sex and age range of included patients was only reported in seven (58%) of 12 studies; 30,31,35,36,[38][39][40] CT colonography technique was inconsistently reported (table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interpretation method was via two-dimensional display with three-dimensional images as necessary in eight (67%) of 12 studies, 30,31,[33][34][35]37,39,40 two-dimensional review alone in one (8%) of 12 studies, 42 and was unreported in three (25%) of 12 studies. 36,38,41 Use of computer-aided detection was not stated in seven (58%) of 12 studies, 33,34,36,38,39,41,42 two (17%) studies 37,40 used it routinely, and in three (25%) studies 30,31,35 it was optional. Five (42%) of 12 studies 33,34,36,37,40 used the C-RADS reporting scheme (6 mm polyp reporting threshold), one (8%) study 35 used a modified C-RADS scheme (also with a 6 mm threshold), two (17%) studies 39,41 used a 10 mm threshold, two (17%) studies 30,31 allowed radiologists to follow their routine clinical practice, and two (17%) studies 38,42 did not detail the reporting threshold used.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-imaging colorectal cancer or interval cancer rates after CT colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Obaro

Plumb

Fanshawe

et al. 2018

The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are few data detailing the usage of C-RADS in the clinical screening setting since it was proposed in 2005. Only recently have such programmatic measures been reported in smaller single-institution series [16]. This study represents the results of a 7-year clinical CTC screening experience where C-RADS was prospectively applied to over 7000 patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS): Benchmark Values From a Clinical Screening Program

Pooler

Kim

Lam

et al. 2014

American Journal of Roentgenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE The CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS) is a well-recognized standard for reporting findings at CT colonography (CTC). However, few data on benchmark values for clinical performance have been published to date, especially for screening. The purpose of this study was to establish baseline C-RADS values for CTC screening. SUBJECTS AND METHODS From 2005 to 2011, 6769 asymptomatic adults (3110 men and 3659 women) 50–79 years old (mean [± SD] age, 56.7 ± 6.1 years) were enrolled for first-time CTC screening at a single center. CTC results were prospectively classified according to C-RADS for both colorectal and extracolonic findings. C-RADS classification rates and outcomes for positive patients were analyzed. RESULTS C-RADS classification rates for colorectal evaluation were C0 (0.7%), C1 (85.0%), C2 (8.6%), C3 (5.2%), and C4 (0.6%). Overall, 14.3% of subjects were positive (C2–C4), and positive findings were more frequent among men (17.5%) than women (11.6%; p< 0.0001). Positivity also increased with age, from 13.4% of patients 50–64 years old to 21.8% of patients 65–79 years old (p< 0.0001). Regarding extracolonic evaluation, 86.6% of patients were either negative for extracolonic findings or had unimportant extracolonic findings (E1 or E2). Likely unimportant but indeterminate extracolonic findings where further workup might be indicated (E3) were found in 11.3% of patients, whereas 2.1% had likely important extracolonic findings (E4). Overall, E3 and E4 rates were increased for older (p< 0.0001) and female (p= 0.008) cohorts. CONCLUSION C-RADS results from our initial experience with CTC screening may serve as an initial benchmark for program comparison and quality assurance measures.

show abstract

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC); colorectal cancer diagnosis with CTC in an Auckland population

Abstract: The sensitivity of 95% for CTC in the detection of colorectal cancer compares favourably with the published national and international data.

Cited by 5 publications

References 13 publications

Retrospective analysis of computed tomographic colonography in a rural hospital

Retrospective analysis of computed tomographic colonography in a rural hospital

Post-imaging colorectal cancer or interval cancer rates after CT colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS): Benchmark Values From a Clinical Screening Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About