17 research outputs found

    Role of preoperative CT colonography in patients with colorectal cancer

    No full text

    La colonografia TC nel cancro colorettale

    No full text

    CT colonography after incomplete colonoscopy in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test

    No full text
    AIM: To report our experience with computed tomography colonography (CTC) systematically performed in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT) and an incomplete colonoscopy in the setting of a population-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC)

    Screening for colorectal cancer with FOBT, virtual colonoscopy and optical colonoscopy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial in the Florence district (SAVE study)

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most frequent cancer in Europe. Randomized clinical trials demonstrated that screening with fecal occult blood test (FOBT) reduces mortality from CRC. Accordingly, the European Community currently recommends population-based screening with FOBT. Other screening tests, such as computed tomography colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC), are highly accurate for examining the entire colon for adenomas and CRC. Acceptability represents a critical determinant of the impact of a screening program. We designed a randomized controlled trial to compare participation rate and diagnostic yield of FOBT, CTC with computer-aided diagnosis, and OC as primary tests for population-based screening. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 14,000 subjects aged 55 to 64 years, living in the Florence district and never screened for CRC, will be randomized in three arms: group 1 (5,000 persons) invited to undergo CTC (divided into: subgroup 1A with reduced cathartic preparation and subgroup 1B with standard bowel preparation); group 2 (8,000 persons) invited to undergo a biannual FOBT for three rounds; and group 3 (1,000 persons) invited to undergo OC. Subjects of each group will be invited by mail to undergo the selected test. All subjects with a positive FOBT or CTC test (that is, mass or at least one polyp ≥6 mm) will be invited to undergo a second-level OC. Primary objectives of the study are to compare the participation rate to FOBT, CTC and OC; to compare the detection rate for cancer or advanced adenomas of CTC versus three rounds of biannual FOBT; to evaluate referral rate for OC induced by primary CTC versus three rounds of FOBT; and to estimate costs of the three screening strategies. A secondary objective of the study is to create a biological bank of blood and stool specimens from subjects undergoing CTC and OC. DISCUSSION: This study will provide information about participation/acceptability, diagnostic yield and costs of screening with CTC in comparison with the recommended test (FOBT) and OC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01651624

    Reduced and Full-Preparation CT Colonography, Fecal Immunochemical Test, and Colonoscopy for Population Screening of Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial

    No full text
    Background: Population screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is widely adopted, but the preferred strategy is still under debate. We aimed to compare reduced (r-CTC) and full cathartic preparation CT colonography (f-CTC), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and optical colonoscopy (OC) as primary screening tests for CRC. Methods: Citizens of a district of Florence, Italy, age 54 to 65 years, were allocated (8:2.5:2.5:1) with simple randomization to be invited by mail to one of four screening interventions: 1) biennial FIT for three rounds, 2) r-CTC, 3) f-CTC, 4) OC. Patients tested positive to FIT or CTC (at least one polyp ≥6mm) were referred to OC work-up. The primary outcomes were participation rate and detection rate (DR) for cancer or advanced adenoma (advanced neoplasia). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Sixteen thousand eighty-seven randomly assigned subjects were invited to the assigned screening test. Participation rates were 50.4% (4677/9288) for first-round FIT, 28.1% (674/2395) for r-CTC, 25.2% (612/2430) for f-CTC, and 14.8% (153/1036) for OC. All differences between groups were statistically significant (P =. 047 for r-CTC vs f-CTC; P <. 001 for all others). DRs for advanced neoplasia were 1.7% (79/4677) for first-round FIT, 5.5% (37/674) for r-CTC, 4.9% (30/612) for f-CTC, and 7.2% (11/153) for OC. Differences in DR between CTC groups and FIT were statistically significant (P <. 001), but not between r-CTC and f-CTC (P =. 65). Conclusions: Reduced preparation increases participation in CTC. Lower attendance and higher DR of CTC as compared with FIT are key factors for the optimization of its role in population screening of CRC

    Computer-based self-training for CT colonography with and without CAD

    No full text
    Objectives: To determine whether (1) computer-based self-training for CT colonography (CTC) improves interpretation performance of novice readers; (2) computer-aided detection (CAD) use during training affects learning. Methods: Institutional review board approval and patients’ informed consent were obtained for all cases included in this study. Twenty readers (17 radiology residents, 3 radiologists) with no experience in CTC interpretation were recruited in three centres. After an introductory course, readers performed a baseline assessment test (37 cases) using CAD as second reader. Then they were randomized (1:1) to perform either a computer-based self-training (150 cases verified at colonoscopy) with CAD as second reader or the same training without CAD. The same assessment test was repeated after completion of the training programs. Main outcome was per lesion sensitivity (≥ 6 mm). A generalized estimating equation model was applied to evaluate readers’ performance and the impact of CAD use during training. Results: After training, there was a significant improvement in average per lesion sensitivity in the unassisted phase, from 74% (356/480) to 83% (396/480) (p < 0.001), and in the CAD-assisted phase, from 83% (399/480) to 87% (417/480) (p = 0.021), but not in average per patient sensitivity, from 93% (390/420) to 94% (395/420) (p = 0.41), and specificity, from 81% (260/320) to 86% (276/320) (p = 0.15). No significant effect of CAD use during training was observed on per patient sensitivity and specificity, nor on per lesion sensitivity. Conclusions: A computer-based self-training program for CTC improves readers’ per lesion sensitivity. CAD as second reader does not have a significant impact on learning if used during training. Key Points: • Computer-based self-training for CT colonography improves per lesion sensitivity of novice readers.• Self-training program does not increase per patient specificity of novice readers.• CAD used during training does not have significant impact on learning
    corecore