Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CT colonography (CTC) as a triage technique in faecal occult blood test (FOBT)-positive screening participants. METHODS: Consecutive guaiac (G-FOBT) and immunochemical (I-FOBT) FOBT-positive patients scheduled for colonoscopy underwent CTC with iodine tagging bowel preparation. Each CTC was read independently by two experienced observers. Per patient sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated based on double reading with different CTC cut-off lesion sizes using segmental unblinded colonoscopy as the reference standard. The acceptability of the technique to patients was evaluated with questionnaires. RESULTS: 302 FOBT-positive patients were included (54 G-FOBT and 248 I-FOBT). 22 FOBT-positive patients (7%) had a colorectal carcinoma and 211 (70%) had a lesion >or=6 mm. Participants considered colonoscopy more burdensome than CTC (por=6 mm. The PPV of CTC was 87% (95% CI 80% to 93%) and NPV 77% (95% CI 69% to 85%). Using CTC as a triage technique in 100 FOBT-positive patients would mean that colonoscopy could be prevented in 28 patients while missing >or=10 mm lesions in 2 patients. CONCLUSION: CTC with limited bowel preparation has reasonable predictive values in an FOBT-positive population and a higher acceptability to patients than colonoscopy. However, due to the high prevalence of clinically relevant lesions in FOBT-positive patients, CTC is unlikely to be an efficient triage technique in a first round FOBT population screening programme

CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers

The purpose of this study was to investigate if experienced readers differ when matching polyps shown by both CT colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) and to explore the reasons for discrepancy. Twenty-eight CTC cases with corresponding OC were presented to eight experienced CTC readers. Cases represented a broad spectrum of findings, not completely fulfilling typical matching criteria. In 21 cases there was a single polyp on CTC and OC; in seven there were multiple polyps. Agreement between readers for matching was analyzed. For the 21 single-polyp cases, the number of correct matches per reader varied from 13 to 19. Almost complete agreement between readers was observed in 15 cases (71%), but substantial discrepancy was found for the remaining six (29%) probably due to large perceived differences in polyp size between CT and OC. Readers were able to match between 27 (71%) and 35 (92%) of the 38 CTC detected polyps in the seven cases with multiple polyps. Experienced CTC readers agree to a considerable extent when matching polyps between CTC and subsequent OC, but non-negligible disagreement exist

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in an FOBT positive screening population

Item does not contain fulltextPURPOSE: Aim was to evaluate the accuracy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) for detection of colorectal neoplasia in a Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) positive screening population. METHODS: In three different institutions, consecutive FOBT positives underwent CTC after laxative free iodine tagging bowel preparation followed by colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. Each CTC was read by two experienced observers. For CTC and for colonoscopy the per-polyp sensitivity and per-patient sensitivity and specificity were calculated for detection of carcinomas, advanced adenomas, and adenomas. RESULTS: In total 22 of 302 included FOBT positive participants had a carcinoma (7%) and 137 had an adenoma or carcinoma >/=10 mm (45%). CTC sensitivity for carcinoma was 95% with one rectal carcinoma as false negative finding. CTC sensitivity for advanced adenomas was 92% (95% CI: 88-96) vs. 96% (95% CI: 93-99) for colonoscopy (P = 0.26). For adenomas and carcinomas >/=10 mm the CTC per-polyp sensitivity was 93% (95% CI: 89-97) vs. 97% (95% CI: 94-99) for colonoscopy (P = 0.17). The per-patient sensitivity for the detection of adenomas and carcinomas >/=10 mm was 95% (95% CI: 91-99) for CTC vs. 99% (95% CI: 98-100) for colonoscopy (P = 0.07), while the per-patient specificity was 90% (95% CI: 86-95) and 96% (95% CI: 94-99), respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CTC with limited bowel preparation performed in an FOBT positive screening population has high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of adenomas and carcinomas and a sensitivity similar to that of colonoscopy for relevant lesions.1 december 201

Does CT colonography have a role for population-based colorectal cancer screening?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. CRC screening has been proven to reduce disease-specific mortality and several European countries employ national screening programmes. These almost exclusively rely on stool tests, with endoscopy used as an adjunct in some countries. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a potential screening test, with an estimated sensitivity of 88 % for advanced neoplasia ≥10 mm. Recent randomised studies have shown that CTC and colonoscopy have similar yields of advanced neoplasia per screened invitee, indicating that CTC is potentially viable as a primary screening test. However, the evidence is not fully elaborated. It is unclear whether CTC screening is cost-effective and the impact of extracolonic findings, both medical and economic, remains unknown. Furthermore, the effect of CTC screening on CRC-related mortality is unknown, as it is also unknown for colonoscopy. It is plausible that both techniques could lead to decreased mortality, as for sigmoidoscopy and gFOBT. Although radiation exposure is a drawback, this disadvantage may be over-emphasised. In conclusion, the detection characteristics and acceptability of CTC suggest it is a viable screening investigation. Implementation will depend on detection of extracolonic disease and health-economic impact

Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences

To assess the variability and systematic differences in polyp measurements on optical colonoscopy and CT colonography. Gastroenterologists measured 51 polyps by visual estimation, forceps comparison and linear probe. CT colonography observers randomly assessed polyp size two-dimensionally (abdominal and intermediate window) and three-dimensionally (manually and semi-automatically). Linear mixed models were used to assess the variability and systematic differences between CT colonography and optical colonoscopy techniques. The variability of forceps and linear probe measurements was comparable and both showed less variability than measurement by visual assessment. Measurements by linear probe were 0.7 mm smaller than measurements by visual assessment or by forceps. The variability of all CT colonography techniques was lower than for measurements by forceps or visual assessment and sometimes lower (only 2D intermediate window and manual 3D) compared with measurements by linear probe. All CT colonography measurements judged polyps to be larger than optical colonoscopy, with differences ranging from 0.7 to 2.3 mm. A linear probe does not reduce the measurement variability of endoscopists compared with the forceps. Measurement differences between observers on CT colonography were usually smaller than at optical colonoscopy. Polyps appeared larger when using various CT colonography techniques than when measured during optical colonoscop

Screening for colorectal cancer: possible improvements by risk assessment evaluation?

Emerging results indicate that screening improves survival of patients with colorectal cancer. Therefore, screening programs are already implemented or are being considered for implementation in Asia, Europe and North America. At present, a great variety of screening methods are available including colono- and sigmoidoscopy, CT- and MR-colonography, capsule endoscopy, DNA and occult blood in feces, and so on. The pros and cons of the various tests, including economic issues, are debated. Although a plethora of evaluated and validated tests even with high specificities and reasonable sensitivities are available, an international consensus on screening procedures is still not established. The rather limited compliance in present screening procedures is a significant drawback. Furthermore, some of the procedures are costly and, therefore, selection methods for these procedures are needed. Current research into improvements of screening for colorectal cancer includes blood-based biological markers, such as proteins, DNA and RNA in combination with various demographically and clinically parameters into a “risk assessment evaluation” (RAE) test. It is assumed that such a test may lead to higher acceptance among the screening populations, and thereby improve the compliances. Furthermore, the involvement of the media, including social media, may add even more individuals to the screening programs. Implementation of validated RAE and progressively improved screening methods may reform the cost/benefit of screening procedures for colorectal cancer. Therefore, results of present research, validating RAE tests, are awaited with interest

Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. Early detection and removal of CRC or its precursor lesions by population screening can reduce mortality. Colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) are highly accurate exams and screening options that examine the entire colon. The success of screening depends on the participation rate. We designed a randomized trial to compare the uptake, yield and costs of direct colonoscopy population screening, using either a telephone consultation or a consultation at the outpatient clinic, versus CT colonography first, with colonoscopy in CT colonography positives.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>7,500 persons between 50 and 75 years will be randomly selected from the electronic database of the municipal administration registration and will receive an invitation to participate in either CT colonography (2,500 persons) or colonoscopy (5,000 persons) screening. Those invited for colonoscopy screening will be randomized to a prior consultation either by telephone or a visit at the outpatient clinic. All CT colonography invitees will have a prior consultation by telephone. Invitees are instructed to consult their general practitioner and not to participate in screening if they have symptoms suggestive for CRC. After providing informed consent, participants will be scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome measure of this study is the participation rate. Secondary outcomes are the diagnostic yield, the expected and perceived burden of the screening test, level of informed choice and cost-effectiveness of both screening methods.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will provide further evidence to enable decision making in population screening for colorectal cancer.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Dutch trial register: NTR1829</p

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer. Methods: This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4-6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6-8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F-FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy. Discussion: If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care