Trends in Colorectal Cancer Screening from the National Health Interview Survey: Analysis of the Impact of Different Modalities on Overall Screening Rates.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in adults in the United States. Despite compelling evidence of improved outcomes in colorectal cancer, screening rates are not optimal. This study aimed to characterize colorectal cancer screening trends over the last two decades and assess the impact of various screening modalities on overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Using National Health Interview Survey data from 2005 to 2021, we examined colorectal cancer screening [colonoscopy, multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal occult blood test (FOBT)/fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography] rates among adults ages 50-75 years (n = 85,571). A pseudo-time-series cross-sectional (pseudo-TSCS) analysis was conducted including a random effects generalized least squares regression model to estimate the relative impact of each modality on changes in colorectal cancer screening rates. Among 50 to 75 year olds, the estimated colorectal cancer screening rate increased from 47.7% in 2005 to 69.9% in 2021, with the largest increase between 2005 and 2010 (47.7%-60.7%). Rates subsequently plateaued until 2015 but increased from 63.5% in 2015 to 69.9% in 2018. This was primarily driven by the increased use of mt-sDNA (2.5% in 2018 to 6.6% in 2021). Pseudo-TSCS analysis results showed that mt-sDNA contributed substantially to the increase in overall screening rates (77.3%; P < 0.0001) between 2018 and 2021. While colorectal cancer screening rates increased from 2005 to 2021, they remain below the 80% goal. The introduction of mt-sDNA, a noninvasive screening test may have improved overall rates. Sustained efforts are required to further increase screening rates to improve patient outcomes and offering a range of screening options is likely to contribute to achieving this goal. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This retrospective study highlights the importance of convenient stool-based colorectal cancer screening options to achieve the national goal of 80% for overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Empowering screening-eligible individuals with a choice for their colorectal cancer screening tests is imperative.

Computed Tomography Colonography as a Sensible Option for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Evidence Based on Metanalysis / Colonografia por tomografia computadorizada como uma opção sensível para o rastreamento do câncer colorretal: Evidências baseadas em metanálise

Abstract Objective This metanalysis aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography colonography in colorectal polyp detection. Methods A literature search was performed in the PubMed and Web of Science databases. Results A total of 1,872 patients (males 57.2%, females 42.8%) aged 49 to 82 years old (mean age 59.7 ± 5.3 years) were included in this metanalysis. The estimated sensitivity of computed tomography colonography was 88.4% (46.3-95.7%, coefficient of variation [CV]=28.5%) and the estimated specificity was 73.6% (47.4-100.0%, CV=37.5%). For lesions up to 9mm, the sensitivity was 82.5% (62.0-99.9%, CV =25.1%) and the specificity was 79.2% (32.0-98.0%, CV=22.9%). For lesions>9mm, the sensitivity was 90.2% (64.0-100.0%, CV=7.4%) and the specificity was 94.7% (80.0-100.0%, CV=6.2%). No statistically significant differences in sensitivity according to the size of the lesion were found (p=0.0958); however, the specificity was higher for lesions>9mm (p<0.0001). Conclusions Most of the studies analyzed in the present work were conducted before 2010, which is about a decade after computed tomography colonography started being indicated as a screening method by European and American guidelines. Therefore, more studies aimed at analyzing the technique after further technological advancements are necessary, which could lead to the development of more modern devices.

Resumo Objetivo Esta meta-análise teve como objetivo avaliar a sensibilidade e especificidade da colonografia por tomografia computadorizada na detecção de pólipos colorretais. Métodos Foi realizada uma pesquisa bibliográfica nas bases de dados da PubMed e da Web of Science. Resultados Um total de 1.872 pacientes, 57,2% homens e 42,8% mulheres, com idades entre 49 a 82 anos de idade (média de 59,7 ± 5,3 anos) foram incluídos nesta meta análise. A sensibilidade da colonografia por tomografia computadorizada foi estimada em 88,4% (46,3-95,7%; coeficiente de variância [CV]=28,5%) e a especificidade em 73,6% (47,4%-100,0%; CV=37,5%). Para lesões de até 9mm, a sensibilidade foi de 82,5% (62,0-99,9%; CV=25,1%) e a especificidade de 79,2% (32,0-98,0%; CV=22,9%). Para lesõesmaiores que 9mm, a sensibilidade foi de 90,2% (64,0-100,0%; CV=7,4%) e a especificidade de 94,7% (80,0-100,0%; CV=6,2%). Não houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre as sensibilidades por tamanho da lesão (p=0,0958), porém a especificidade foi maior em lesões acima de 9mm (p<0,0001). Conclusão A maioria dos estudos analisados no presente trabalho foi realizada antes de 2010, cerca de uma década depois que a colonografia por tomografia computadorizada passou a ser indicada como método de triagem pelas diretrizes europeias e americanas. Portanto, são necessários mais estudos com o objetivo de analisar a técnica apósmaiores avanços tecnológicos, o que poderia levar ao desenvolvimento de dispositivos mais modernos.

A Systematic Approach of Data Collection and Analysis in Medical Imaging Research.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining the right image dataset for the medical image research systematically is a tedious task. Anatomy segmentation is the key step before extracting the radiomic features from these images. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to segment the 3D colon from CT images and to measure the smaller polyps using image processing techniques. This require huge number of samples for statistical analysis. Our objective was to systematically classify and arrange the dataset based on the parameters of interest so that the empirical testing becomes easier in medical image research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This paper discusses a systematic approach of data collection and analysis before using it for empirical testing. In this research the image were considered from National Cancer Institute (NCI). TCIA from NCI has a vast collection of diagnostic quality images for the research community. These datasets were classified before empirical testing of the research objectives. The images in the TCIA collection were acquired as per the standard protocol defined by the American College of Radiology. Patients in the age group of 50-80 years were involved in various clinical trials (multicenter). The dataset collection has more than 10 billion of DICOM images of various anatomies. In this study, the number of samples considered for empirical testing was 300 (n) acquired from both supine and prone positions. The datasets were classified based on the parameters of interest. The classified dataset makes the dataset selection easier during empirical testing. The images were validated for the data completeness as per the DICOM standard of the 2020b version. A case study of CT Colonography dataset is discussed. CONCLUSION: With this systematic approach of data collection and classification, analysis will be become more easier during empirical testing.
.

Utilization Pattern of Computed Tomographic Colonography in the United States: Analysis of the U.S. National Health Interview Survey.

CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening has been proved to be effective and cost-saving. CT colonography uses minimally invasive evaluation of colorectum and has better patient acceptance, which appears to be a promising screening modality to improve low colorectal cancer screening rate. This study investigated the utilization patterns of CT colonography and factors associated with its use among U.S. adult population. This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed the National Health Interview Survey 2015 and 2018. U.S. adults ages 45 or older without a history of colorectal cancer were included. Survey design-adjusted Wald F tests were used to compare the utilization of CT colonography during the study period. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the predictors of CT colonography among individual socioeconomic and health-related characteristics. The study sample included 34,768 individuals representing 129,430,319 U.S. adult population ages 45 or older. The overall utilization of CT colonography increased from 0.79% in 2015 to 1.33% in 2018 (P < 0.001). 54.5% study participants reported being up-to-date on recommended colorectal cancer screening; of those, 1.8% used CT colonography. Compared with individuals ages 65+, those ages 45-49 years were 2.08 times (OR, 2.08, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-4.35) more likely to use CT colonography. Socioeconomically disadvantaged characteristics (e.g., racial/ethnic minority, low income, publicly funded insurance) were associated with a greater likelihood of CT colonography. This study demonstrated an increasing trend in utilization of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening in U.S. adults. Younger individuals, racial/ethnic minorities, or those with lower income appear to have a higher CT colonography utilization. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Although computed tomographic (CT) colonography has been proved to be cost-effective and have better patient acceptance, its overall utilization for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is low (<1.4%) among US adults aged 45+ in 2018. More efforts are needed to implement strategies to increase CT colonography for effective CRC prevention.

COVID-19 recovery: tackling the 2-week wait colorectal pathway backlog by optimising CT colonography utilisation.

AIM: To review the indications for computed tomography colonography (CTC) performed on patients referred via the 2-week wait colorectal pathway (2WWCP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on all patients referred through the 2WWCP between October 2018 and September 2019. The referrals were audited against the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) NG12/DG30 guidelines for referral to the 2WWCP, and against the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) 2017 guidelines for CTC. RESULTS: Over the study period, there were 1,707 2WWCP referrals, and 362 (21.2%) of these patients underwent CTC. The median age was 66 years, and 55% were female. Forty-six patients did not meet the NICE NG12/DG30 guidelines for referral to the 2WWCP, and a further 268, although meeting the NICE guidelines, did not meet the RCR 2017 guidelines for CTC. In total, only 13% of CTCs performed complied with both guidelines. CONCLUSION: This audit demonstrated a significant opportunity to reallocate CTC resources in the recovery stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. To improve outcomes for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the UK, establishing a selective straight-to-test CTC 2WWCP should be considered. Documented consent detailing the risks and benefits of CTC versus colonoscopy should take place in order to assist the patient in making an informed choice.

Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography after incomplete colonoscopy. Application of artificial intelligence algorithms to identify complete colonic investigations.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest computed tomography colonography (CTC) following incomplete optical colonoscopy (OC). Colon capsule endoscopies (CCE) have been suggested as an alternative, although completion rates have been unsatisfactory. Introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-based localization algorithms of the camera capsules may enable identification of incomplete CCE investigations overlapping with incomplete OCs. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to investigate relative sensitivity of CCE compared with CTC following incomplete OC, investigate the completion rate when combining results from the incomplete OC and CCE, and develop a forward-tracking algorithm ensuring a safe completeness of combined investigations. METHODS: In this prospective paired study, patients with indication for CTC following incomplete OC were included for CCE and CTC. Location of CCE abortion and OC abortion were registered to identify complete combined investigations. AI-based algorithm for localization of capsules were developed reconstructing the passage of the colon. RESULTS: In 237 individuals with CTC indication; 105 were included, of which 97 underwent both a CCE and CTC. CCE was complete in 66 (68%). Including CCEs which reached most oral point of incomplete OC, 73 (75%) had complete colonic investigations; 78 (80%) had conclusive investigations. Relative sensitivity of CCE compared with CTC was 2.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.76;4.04) for polyps >5 mm and 1.91 (95% CI 1.18;3.09) for polyps >9 mm. An AI-based algorithm was developed. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of CCE following incomplete OC was superior to CTC. Introducing and improving algorithm-based localization of capsule abortion may increase identification of overall complete investigation rates following incomplete OC.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02826993.

An observational study to compare the utilisation of computed tomography colonography with optical colonoscopy as the first diagnostic imaging tool in patients with suspected colorectal cancer.

AIM: To evaluate the clinical and cost implications of using computed tomography colonography (CTC) compared to optical colonoscopy (OC) as the initial colonic investigation in patients with low-to-intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A non-randomised, prospective single-centre study recruited 180 participants to compare the cost implications of two clinical pathways used in the diagnosis of low-to-intermediate risk of CRC that differ in the initial diagnostic test, either CTC or OC. Costs were compared using generalised linear models (GLM) and combined with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, based on the EQ-5D-5L) to estimate cost-effectiveness at 6 months post-recruitment. Secondary outcomes assessed access to care and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Mean (SD, n) cost at 6 months post-recruitment per participant was £991 (£316, n=105) for the OC group and £645 (£607, n=68) for the CTC group, leading to an estimated cost difference of -£370 (95% CI: -£554, -£185, p<0.001). Assuming a £20,000 willingness-to-pay per QALY threshold, there was a 91.4% probability of CTC being cost-effective at month 6. The utilisation of CTC led to improved access to care, with a shorter mean time from referral from primary care to results (6.3 days difference, p=0.005). No differences in patient satisfaction were detected between both groups. CONCLUSION: The utilisation of CTC as the first-line investigation for patients with low-to-intermediate risk of CRC has the potential to release OC capacity, of pivotal importance for patients more likely to benefit from an invasive diagnostic approach.

The choice and definition of summary measure for meta-analysis of clinical studies with binary outcomes: effect on clinical interpretation.

Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses concern the effect of a healthcare intervention on a binary outcome i.e. occurrence (or not) of a particular event. Usually, the overall effect, pooled across all studies included in the meta-analysis, is summarised using the odds ratio (OR) or the relative risk (RR). Under most circumstances, it is obvious how to identify what should be considered as the event of interest-for example, death or a clinically important side-effect. However, on occasion it may not be clear in which "direction" the event should be specified-such as attendance (vs non-attendance) at cancer screening. Usually, this choice is not critical to the overall conclusion of the meta-analysis, but occasionally it can lead to differences in how the included studies are pooled, ultimately affecting the overall meta-analytic result, particularly when using RRs rather than ORs. In this commentary, we will explain this phenomenon in more detail using examples from the literature, and explore how analysts and readers can avoid some potential pitfalls.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy versus CT Colonography in Patients with Large Non-Polypoid Tumours: A Multicentre Prospective Comparative Study (4CN Study).

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Non-polypoid colon lesions compared with polypoid lesions has a high malignant potential. The diagnostic performance of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) for large colorectal non-polypoid tumours, that is, laterally spreading tumours is still unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of CCE and CTC for the diagnosis of large non-polypoid tumours. METHODS: Thirty patients referred for endoscopic submucosal dissection of non-polypoid tumours measuring ≥20 mm were enrolled. Patients first underwent CCE, then colonoscopy (without resection) and CTC on the same day. An experienced gastroenterologist in a third hospital evaluated the CCE and recorded the location, size and morphology of all lesions detected, blinded to the colonoscopic findings. An experienced radiologist read the CTC under the same conditions. Colonoscopic findings were defined as the reference. RESULTS: A total of 30 lesions (T1 cancer: 3, Tis cancer: 7, adenoma: 14, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp: 6) in 27 patients were observed for evaluation. The capsule excretion rate within 8 h was 85% (23/27), and all capsules went beyond the target lesions. Non-polypoid tumours tend to be depicted as polypoid on CCE. Per patient sensitivities were 0.89 (24/27) by CCE and 0.70 (19/27) by CTC (p = 0.0253, McNemar), and per lesion sensitivities were 0.87 (26/30) and 0.67 (20/30) respectively (p = 0.0143). Most lesions missed by both modalities were located in the proximal colon. CONCLUSION: Eighty-seven per cent of non-polypoid tumours were detected by CCE, and the sensitivity using CCE was higher than that obtained using CTC (UMIN0000014772).

Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the participation rate between CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in screening population in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. RCTs that included screening populations and reported participation number were assessed. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the bias and quality. Risk ratio (RR) was used to present the results. The non-participation rate was analyzed to verify the results of participation rate. RESULTS: Five of 760 studies, with a total of 15,974 invitees, were included. The participation rate was higher at CTC (28.8%) than colonoscopy (20.8%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (RR = 1.26; p = 0.070; I2 = 90.3%). The non-participation rate at CTC was significantly lower than colonoscopy (RR = 0.92; p = 0.012; I2 = 86.7%). Subgroup analysis suggested both the participation and non-participation rate were with significant difference between reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC and colonoscopy. Cumulative meta-analysis showed both the participation rate and non-participation rate exhibited a trend over time and sample size. CONCLUSION: The participation rate was higher at CTC than colonoscopy, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. But the non-participation rate was with statistical difference. Screening population seemed more likely to participate the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. Statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The screening populations seem more likely to participate in the CTC, especially the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. The statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future.

Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance and computed tomography colonography for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the recommended procedure for colorectal cancer (CRC), but majority of the patients were diagnosed with advanced or metastatic CRC. Currently, there were inconsistent results about the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) and computed tomography colonography (CTC) in early CRC diagnosis. Our study conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the diagnostic value of MRC and CTC for CRC surveillance. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library to select relevant studies. The summary sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic value of MRC and CTC, respectively. RESULT: Twenty-five studies including 2985 individuals were selected in the final analysis. Eight studies evaluated the diagnostic value of MRC, and 17 studies assessed CTC. The summary sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC in MRC for early detection of CRC were 0.98 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.80-1.00), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.85-0.97), 15.48 (95% CI: 6.30-38.04), 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00-0.25), 115.09 (95% CI: 15.37-862.01), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99), respectively. In addition, the sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC of CTC for diagnosing CRC were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.88-0.99), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 154.11 (95% CI: 67.81-350.22), 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01-0.13), 642.51 (95% CI: 145.05-2846.02), and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00). No significant differences were found between MRC and CTC for DOR in all the subsets. CONCLUSION: The findings of meta-analysis indicated that MRC and CTC have higher diagnostic values for early CRC diagnosis. However, the DOR for diagnosing CRC between MRC and CTC showed no significance.

Accuracy of CT colonography in the preoperative staging of colon cancer: a prospective study of 217 patients.

AIM: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in the preoperative localization and TN staging of colon cancer. CTC can be an effective technique for preoperative evaluation of colon cancer and could facilitate the selection of high-risk patients who may benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHOD: This was a prospective observational study conducted at a single tertiary-care centre. It involved 217 patients (225 tumours) who had colon cancer and underwent preoperative CTC and elective colectomy. The radiologist determined the TNM stage using postprocessing software with multiplanar images and virtual colonoscopy. The following criteria were analysed for every colon tumour: location, size and signs of direct colon wall invasion. The histopathological findings of the surgical colectomy specimens served as the reference standard for local staging. RESULTS: CTC detected all tumours and achieved an exact location in 208 cases (92.4%). CTC findings changed the surgical plan in 31 patients (14.3%) following colonoscopy. The accuracy in differentiating T3/T4 vs T1/T2 tumours was 87.1%, with a sensitivity and specificity of 88.5% and 84.1%, respectively (kappa = 0.71). For high-risk tumours (T3 ≥ 5 mm and T4), CTC showed an accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of 82.7%, 86% and 80%, respectively (kappa = 0.65). The accuracy of N-stage evaluation was 69.3%, the sensitivity 74% and the specificity 67.1% (kappa = 0.37). CONCLUSION: CTC provides accurate information for the assessment of tumour localization and T staging, allowing better surgical planning and also allows the selection of locally advanced tumours that may benefit from new treatments such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance versus computed tomography colonography for colorectal cancer: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Advanced colorectal cancers were associated with poor prognosis, and early diagnosis was important for high-risk patients. Colonography is commonly used for diagnosing colorectal cancer. However, a few studies reported the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) versus computed tomography colonography (CTC). This study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of MRC versus CTC for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Twenty-three studies on the diagnosis of colorectal cancer using MRC or CTC were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases until July 2017. The ratios of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated to compare the diagnostic value of MRC versus CTC. RESULTS: The summary sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and area under the ROC for MRC were 0.97 (0.81-1.00), 0.92 (0.80-0.97), 11.71 (4.46-30.73), 0.03 (0.00-0.24), and 0.98 (0.97-0.99), respectively, for diagnosing colorectal cancer. The pooled estimates for CTC in diagnosing colorectal cancer were as follows: sensitivity, 0.96 (0.90-0.98); specificity, 1.00 (0.99-1.00); PLR, 197.32 (73.21-531.85); NLR, 0.04 (0.02-0.11); and area under the ROC, 1.00 (0.99-1.00). No significant differences were found between MRC and CTC for sensitivity, specificity, and NLR. MRC was associated with lower PLR and area under the ROC for diagnosing colorectal cancer compared with CTC. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated MRC and CTC as potential diagnostic approaches for colorectal cancer. CTC had a higher diagnostic value of PLR and area under the ROC for colorectal cancer.

Colorectal Cancer: Cost-effectiveness of Colonoscopy versus CT Colonography Screening with Participation Rates and Costs.

Purpose To compare the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and colonoscopy screening by using data on unit costs and participation rates from a randomized controlled screening trial in a dedicated screening setting. Materials and Methods Observed participation rates and screening costs from the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening, or COCOS, trial were used in a microsimulation model to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with colonoscopy and CT colonography screening. For both tests, the authors determined optimal age range and screening interval combinations assuming a 100% participation rate. Assuming observed participation for these combinations, the cost-effectiveness of both tests was compared. Extracolonic findings were not included because long-term follow-up data are lacking. Results The participation rates for colonoscopy and CT colonography were 21.5% (1276 of 5924 invitees) and 33.6% (982 of 2920 invitees), respectively. Colonoscopy was more cost-effective in the screening strategies with one or two lifetime screenings, whereas CT colonography was more cost-effective in strategies with more lifetime screenings. CT colonography was the preferred test for willingness-to-pay-thresholds of €3200 per QALY gained and higher, which is lower than the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000. With equal participation, colonoscopy was the preferred test independent of willingness-to-pay thresholds. The findings were robust for most of the sensitivity analyses, except with regard to relative screening costs and subsequent participation. Conclusion Because of the higher participation rates, CT colonography screening for colorectal cancer is more cost-effective than colonoscopy screening. The implementation of CT colonography screening requires previous satisfactory resolution to the question as to how best to deal with extracolonic findings. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Faecal immunochemical test in subjects not attending screening computed tomography colonography and colonoscopy in a randomized trial.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the participation and yield of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in nonattendees for computed tomography colonography (CTC) or optical colonoscopy (OC) screening, in the setting of a randomized trial. In the SAVE trial, 16087 individuals were randomly assigned and invited to one of four interventions for colorectal cancer screening: (i) biennial FIT for three rounds; (ii) reduced-preparation CTC; (iii) full-preparation CTC; and (iv) OC. Nonattendees of reduced-preparation CTC, full-preparation CTC and OC groups were invited to FIT. Here, we analysed the participation rate and the detection rate for cancer or advanced adenoma (advanced neoplasia) of FIT among nonattendees for reduced-preparation CTC, full-preparation CTC and OC. Nonattendees were 1721 of 2395 (71.9%) eligible invitees in the reduced-preparation CTC group, 1818 of 2430 (74.8%) in the full-preparation CTC group and 883 of 1036 (85.2%) in the OC group. Participation rates for FIT were 20.2% (347/1721) in nonattendees for reduced-preparation CTC, 21.4% (389/1818) in nonattendees for full-preparation CTC and 25.8% (228/883) in nonattendees for OC. Differences between both CTC groups and the OC group were statistically significant (P≤0.01), whereas the difference between reduced-preparation and full-preparation CTC groups was not statistically significant (P=0.38). The detection rate of FIT was not statistically significantly different among nonattendees for reduced-preparation CTC (0.9%; 3/347), nonattendees for full-preparation CTC (1.8%; 7/389) and nonattendees for OC (1.3%; 3/228) (P>0.05). Offering FIT to nonattendees for CTC or OC increases the overall participation in colorectal cancer screening and enables the detection of additional advanced neoplasia.

Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Polyps at CT Colonography: Prospective Clinical Performance and Third-Party Reimbursement.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the initial clinical performance and third-party reimbursement rates of supplementary computer-aided detection (CAD) at CT colonography (CTC) for detecting colorectal polyps 6 mm or larger in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the prospective clinical performance of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved CAD system in second-reader mode in 347 consecutive adults (mean age, 57.6 years; 205 women, 142 men) undergoing CTC evaluation over a 5-month period. The reference standard consisted of the prospective interpretation by experienced CTC radiologists combined with subsequent optical colonoscopy (OC), if performed. We also assessed third-party reimbursement for CAD for studies performed over an 18-month period. RESULTS: In all, 69 patients (mean [± SD] age, 59.0 ± 7.7 years; 32 men, 37 women) had 129 polyps ≥ 6 mm. Per-patient CAD sensitivity was 91.3% (63 of 69). Per-polyp CAD-alone sensitivity was 88.4% (114 of 129), including 88.3% (83 of 94) for 6- to 9-mm polyps and 88.6% (31 of 35) for polyps 10 mm or larger. On retrospective review, three additional polyps 6 mm or larger were seen at OC and marked by CAD but dismissed as CAD false-positives at CTC. The mean number of false-positive CAD marks was 4.4 ± 3.1 per series. Of 1225 CTC cases reviewed for reimbursement, 31.0% of the total charges for CAD interpretation had been recovered from a variety of third-party payers. CONCLUSION: In our routine clinical practice, CAD showed good sensitivity for detecting colorectal polyps 6 mm or larger, with an acceptable number of false-positive marks. Importantly, CAD is already being reimbursed by some third-party payers in our clinical CTC practice.

Insurance Coverage for CT Colonography Screening: Impact on Overall Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates.

Purpose To compare overall colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates for patients who were eligible and due for CRC screening and who were with and without insurance coverage for computed tomographic (CT) colonography for CRC screening. Materials and Methods The institutional review board approved this retrospective cohort study, with a waiver of consent. This study used longitudinal electronic health record data from 2005 through 2010 for patients managed by one of the largest multispecialty physician groups in the United States. It included 33 177 patients under age 65 who were eligible and due for CRC screening and managed by the participating health system. Stratified Cox regression models provided propensity-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the relationship between CT colonography coverage and CRC screening. Results After adjustment, patients who had insurance coverage for CT colonography and were due for CRC screening had a 48% greater likelihood of being screened for CRC by any method compared with those without coverage who were due for CRC screening (HR, 1.48; 95% CI: 1.41, 1.55). Similarly, patients with CT colonography coverage had a greater likelihood of being screened with CT colonography (HR, 8.35; 95% CI: 7.11, 9.82) and with colonoscopy (HR, 1.38; 95% CI: 1.31, 1.45) but not with fecal occult blood test (HR, 1.00; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.10) than those without such insurance coverage. Conclusion Insurance coverage of CT colonography for CRC screening was associated with a greater likelihood of a patient being screened and a greater likelihood of being screened with a test that helps both to detect cancer and prevent cancer from developing (CT colonography or colonoscopy). © RSNA, 2017.

CT Colonographic Screening of Patients With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer: Comparison With Adults at Average Risk and Implications for Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to compare rates of lesion detection at CT colonographic (CTC) screening of adults without symptoms who had and who did not have a family history of colorectal cancer according to American Cancer Society guidelines and to consider the clinical implications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over 134 months, consecutively registered CTC cohorts of adults without symptoms who had (n = 156; 88 [56.4%] women; 68 [43.6%] men; mean age, 56.3 years) and who did not have (n = 8857; 4757 [53.7%] women; 4100 [46.3%] men; mean age, 56.6 years) an American Cancer Society-defined family history of colorectal cancer (first-degree relative with diagnosis before age 60 years or two first-degree relatives with diagnosis at any age) were compared for relevant colorectal findings. RESULTS: For the family history versus no family history cohorts, the frequency of all nondiminutive polyps (≥ 6 mm) reported at CTC was 23.7% versus 15.5% (p = 0.007); small polyps (6-9 mm), 13.5% versus 9.1% (p = 0.068); and large polyps (≥ 10 mm), 10.2% versus 6.5% (p = 0.068). The rate of referral for colonoscopy was greater for the family history cohort (16.0% vs 10.5%; p = 0.035). However, the frequencies of proven advanced adenoma (4.5% vs 3.2%; p = 0.357), nonadvanced adenoma (5.1% vs 2.6%; p = 0.070), and cancer (0.0% vs 0.4%; p = 0.999) were not significantly increased. The difference in positive rates between the two cohorts (11.5% vs 4.3%; p < 0.001) was primarily due to nonneoplastic findings of no colorectal cancer relevance, such as small hyperplastic polyps, diverticular disease, and false-positive CTC findings. CONCLUSION: Although the overall CTC-positive and colonoscopy referral rates were higher in the family history cohort, the clinically relevant frequencies of advanced neoplasia and cancer were not sufficiently increased to preclude CTC screening. These findings support the use of CTC as a front-line screening option in adults with a family history of colorectal cancer.