Burden of waiting for surveillance CT colonography in patients with screen-detected 6-9 mm polyps

We assessed the burden of waiting for surveillance CT colonography (CTC) performed in patients having 6-9 mm colorectal polyps on primary screening CTC. Additionally, we compared the burden of primary and surveillance CTC. In an invitational population-based CTC screening trial, 101 persons were diagnosed with <3 polyps 6-9 mm, for which surveillance CTC after 3 years was advised. Validated questionnaires regarding expected and perceived burden (5-point Likert scales) were completed before and after index and surveillance CTC, also including items on burden of waiting for surveillance CTC. McNemar's test was used for comparison after dichotomization. Seventy-eight (77 %) of 101 invitees underwent surveillance CTC, of which 66 (85 %) completed the expected and 62 (79 %) the perceived burden questionnaire. The majority of participants (73 %) reported the experience of waiting for surveillance CTC as 'never' or 'only sometimes' burdensome. There was almost no difference in expected and perceived burden between surveillance and index CTC. Waiting for the results after the procedure was significantly more burdensome for surveillance CTC than for index CTC (23 vs. 8 %; p = 0.012). Waiting for surveillance CTC after primary CTC screening caused little or no burden for surveillance participants. In general, the burden of surveillance and index CTC were comparable. • Waiting for surveillance CTC within a CRC screening caused little burden • The vast majority never or only sometimes thought about their polyp(s) • In general, the burden of index and surveillance CTC were comparable • Awaiting results was more burdensome for surveillance than for index CT

CT-Colonography vs. Colonoscopy for Detection of High-Risk Sessile Serrated Polyps

OBJECTIVES: Sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) are suggested to be the precursors of 15-30% of all colorectal cancers (CRCs). Therefore, CRC screening modalities should also be designed to detect high-risk SSPs. We compared computed tomography colonography (CTC) with colonoscopy-based screening for the detection of high-risk SSPs in average-risk individuals. METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial that compared CTC with colonoscopy for population screening were used for the analysis. Individuals diagnosed at CTC with a lesion >= 10 mm in size were referred for colonoscopy. Individuals with only 6-9 mm lesions were offered surveillance CTC. This surveillance CTC was followed by a colonoscopy when a lesion >= 6 mm was detected. Yield of both was accumulated to mimic current American College of Radiology CTC referral strategy (referral of individuals with any lesion >= 6 mm). Per participant detection of >= 1 high-risk (dysplastic and/or = 10 mm) SSP was compared with colonoscopy using multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: In total, 8,844 individuals were invited to participate (in 2: 1 allocation), of which 1,276 colonoscopy and 982 CTC invitees participated in the study. In the colonoscopy arm, 4.3% of individuals were diagnosed with >= 1 high-risk SSP, compared with 0.8% in the CTC arm (odds ratio (OR) 5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6-11.6; P<0.001). In total, 3.1% of individuals in the colonoscopy arm were diagnosed with high-risk SSPs as most advanced lesion, compared with 0.4% in the CTC arm (OR 7.7; 95% CI 2.7-21.6; P<0.001). The current CTC strategy showed a marked lower detection for especially fl at high-risk SSPs (17 vs. 0), high-risk SSP located in the proximal colon (32 vs. 1), and SSPs with dysplasia (30 vs. 1). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized controlled setting, the detection rate of high-risk SSPs was significantly higher with colonoscopy than CTC. These results might have implications for CTC as a CRC modality for opportunistic screening in average-risk adults

Evolution of Screen-Detected Small (6-9 mm) Polyps After a 3-Year Surveillance Interval: Assessment of Growth With CT Colonography Compared With Histopathology

OBJECTIVES : Volumetric growth assessment has been proposed for predicting advanced histology at surveillance computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC). We examined whether is it possible to predict which small (6-9 mm) polyps are likely to become advanced adenomas at surveillance by assessing volumetric growth. METHODS: In an invitational population-based CTC screening trial, 93 participants were diagnosed with one or two 6-9 mm polyps as the largest lesion(s). They were offered a 3-year surveillance CTC. Participants in whom surveillance CTC showed lesion(s) of >= 6 mm were offered colonoscopy. Volumetric measurements were performed on index and surveillance CTC, and polyps were classified into growth categories according to +/- 30% volumetric change (> 30% growth as progression, 30% growth to 30% decrease as stable, and > 30% decrease as regression). Polyp growth was related to histopathology. RESULTS: Between July 2012 and May 2014, 70 patients underwent surveillance CTC after a mean surveillance interval of 3.3 years (s. d. 0.3; range 3.0-4.6 years). In all, 33 (35%) of 95 polyps progressed, 36 (38%) remained stable, and 26 (27%) regressed, including an apparent resolution in 13 (14%) polyps. In 68 (83%) of the 82 polyps at surveillance, histopathology was obtained; 15 (47%) of 32 progressing polyps were advanced adenomas, 6 (21%) of 28 stable polyps, and none of the regressing polyps. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of 6-9 mm polyps will not progress to advanced neoplasia within 3 years. Those that do progress to advanced status can in particular be found among the lesions that increased in size on surveillance CTC

Computer tomography colonography participation and yield in patients under surveillance for 6-9 mm polyps in a population-based screening trial

Surveillance CT colonography (CTC) is a viable option for 6-9 mm polyps at CTC screening for colorectal cancer. We established participation and diagnostic yield of surveillance and determined overall yield of CTC screening. In an invitational CTC screening trial 82 of 982 participants harboured 6-9 mm polyps as the largest lesion(s) for which surveillance CTC was advised. Only participants with one or more lesion(s) a parts per thousand yen6 mm at surveillance CTC were offered colonoscopy (OC); 13 had undergone preliminary OC. The surveillance CTC yield was defined as the number of participants with advanced neoplasia in the 82 surveillance participants, and was added to the primary screening yield. Sixty-five of 82 participants were eligible for surveillance CTC of which 56 (86.2 %) participated. Advanced neoplasia was diagnosed in 15/56 participants (26.8 %) and 9/13 (69.2 %) with preliminary OC. Total surveillance yield was 24/82 (29.3 %). No carcinomas were detected. Adding surveillance results to initial screening CTC yield significantly increased the advanced neoplasia yield per 100 CTC participants (6.1 to 8.6; p < 0.001) and per 100 invitees (2.1 to 2.9; p < 0.001). Surveillance CTC for 6-9 mm polyps has a substantial yield of advanced adenomas and significantly increased the CTC yield in population screening. The participation rate in surveillance CT colonography (CTC) is 86 %. Advanced adenoma prevalence in a 6-9 mm CTC surveillance population is high. Surveillance CTC significantly increases the yield of population screening by CTC. Surveillance CTC for 6-9 mm polyps is a safe strategy. Surveillance CTC is unlikely to yield new important extracolonic findings