Use of Screening CT Colonography by Age and Race: A Study of Potential Access Barriers Related to Medicare Noncoverage Based on Data From the ACR's National CT Colonography Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of this investigation were to evaluate the use of screening CT colonography (CTC) examinations by age comparing individuals of Medicare-eligible age to younger cohorts and to determine if the association between use of CTC and Medicare-eligible age varies by race. Although the Affordable Care Act requires commercial insurance coverage of screening CTC, Medicare does not cover screening CTC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the ACR's CTC registry, the distribution of procedures by age was evaluated using a negative binomial model with patient age (to capture overall trend), indicator of Medicare-eligible age (to capture immediate changes in trend at age 65), and their interaction (to capture gradual changes after age 65) as independent variables. The association between the number of screening CTCs and age was compared by racial identity. RESULTS: The CTC registry contained data on 12,648 screening examinations. Between ages 52 and 64, the number of screening examinations increased; each additional age year was associated with a 5.3% (P < .001) increase in the number of screenings. However, after age 65, the number of screening examinations decreased by -6.9% per additional year of age above 65 compared with the trend between ages 52 and 64 (P < .001). The modal age group for CTC use was 65 to 69 years in white and 55 to 59 in black individuals. CONCLUSION: After age 65, the number of screening CTC examinations decreased, likely due, at least in part, to lack of Medicare coverage. Medicare noncoverage may have a disproportionate impact on black patients and other racial minorities.

The challenges of CT colonography reimbursement.

CT colonography has been shown to be an effective method to screen for colorectal cancer. However, at present, full endorsement and reimbursement for screening CT colonography, particularly by the US Preventive Services Task Force and CMS, respectively, are absent, so this screening option is infrequently used, and optical colonoscopy remains the de facto standard screening option. The authors summarize the past accomplishments that led to the current state of reimbursement and outline the remaining challenges and road to full acceptance and reimbursement of screening CT colonography nationally.

Suspected extracolonic neoplasms detected on CT colonography: literature review and possible outcomes.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study summarizes the literature on the detection of cancer among indeterminate extracolonic findings on computed tomographic (CT) colonography in five targeted organs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed for English-language literature published between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2010. We describe extracolonic findings in the kidney, lung, liver, pancreas, and ovary suspect for malignancy as they are associated with high mortality. For each organ, we calculated the median prevalence, positive predictive value (PPV), and false positive rate of malignancy and a pooled false-positive rate across studies. RESULTS: Of 91 publications initially identified, 24 were eligible for review. Indeterminate renal masses on CT colonography had 20.5% median PPV and low pooled false positive rate of 1.3% (95% confidence interval 0.6-2.0). In contrast, indeterminate masses of the lung, liver, pancreas, and ovary had low PPV (median values ranged from 0% to 3.8%). Indeterminate masses of the ovary resulted in the highest pooled false-positive rate of 2.2%. Results were similar in studies of both screening and nonscreening populations. We estimated the probability of false positive results through the detection of significant extracolonic findings as 46 per 1000 for men and 68 per 1000 for women. CONCLUSIONS: Indeterminate renal masses newly detected on CT colonography have an estimated one in five chance of malignancy and therefore warrant further follow-up to provide a definitive diagnosis. Conversely, indeterminate masses of the lung, liver, pancreas, and ovary are associated with high false positive rates and merit more conservative clinical follow-up.

The National CT Colonography Trial: assessment of accuracy in participants 65 years of age and older.

PURPOSE: To conduct post-hoc analysis of National CT Colonography Trial data and compare the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) colonography in participants younger than 65 years with those in participants aged 65 years and older. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 2600 asymptomatic participants recruited at 15 centers for the trial, 497 were 65 years of age or older. Approval of this HIPAA-compliant study was obtained from the institutional review board of each site, and informed consent was obtained from each subject. Radiologists certified in CT colonography reported lesions 5 mm in diameter or larger. Screening detection of large (≥10-mm) histologically confirmed colorectal neoplasia was the primary end point; screening detection of smaller (6-9-mm) colorectal neoplasia was a secondary end point. The differences in sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography in the two age cohorts (age < 65 years and age ≥ 65 years) were estimated with bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Complete data were available for 477 participants 65 years of age or older (among 2531 evaluable participants). Prevalence of adenomas 1 cm or larger for the older participants versus the younger participants was 6.9% (33 of 477) versus 3.7% (76 of 2054) (P < .004). For large neoplasms, mean estimates for CT colonography sensitivity and specificity among the older cohort were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.644, 0.944) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.779, 0.883), respectively. For large neoplasms in the younger group, CT colonography sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.837, 0.967) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.816, 0.899), respectively. Per-polyp sensitivity for large neoplasms for the older and younger populations was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.578, 0.869) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.717, 0.924), respectively. For the older and younger groups, per-participant sensitivity was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.565, 0.854) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.745, 0.882) for detecting adenomas 6 mm in diameter or larger. CONCLUSION: For most measures of diagnostic performance and in most subsets, the difference between senior-aged participants and those younger than 65 years was not statistically significant.

Economic impact of extracolonic findings at computed tomographic colonography.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of extracolonic findings at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and estimate the cost of the workup of newly discovered potentially significant lesions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: An electronic information system was used to review all patient data before and after the CTC in a mixed cohort of 376 patients. Extracolonic findings were categorized into the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System classification. The impact of additional diagnostic workup was estimated using Medicare reimbursement for relevant extra services. RESULTS: There were 51 patients (13.6%) with E3 and 16 (4.3%) with E4 findings. At least 1 extracolonic finding was found in 272 patients (72.3%). There were 520 extracolonic findings, of which, 447 (86.0%) were classified as low clinical significance, E2. Only 7 (12.5%) of 56 E3 lesions and 7 (41.2%) of 17 E4 lesions received additional diagnostic workup. The total additional cost of evaluating E3 and E4 lesions was $13.07 per CTC. CONCLUSIONS: A mixed (screening and nonscreening) CTC population has a low prevalence of high-risk lesions, and the additional cost of their evaluation is relatively small.

Computed tomographic colonography: clinical value.

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) has the potential to reliably detect polyps in the colon. Its clinical value is accepted for several indications. The main target is screening asymptomatic people for colorectal cancer (CRC). As in large multi-centre trials controversial results were obtained, acceptance of this indication on a large scale is still pending. Agreement exists that in experienced hands screening can be performed with CTC. This emphasizes the importance of adequate and intensive training. Besides this, other problems have to be solved. A low complication profile is mandatory. Perforation rate is very low. Ultra-low dose radiation should be used. When screening large patient cohorts, CTC will need a time-efficient and cost-effective management without too many false positives and additional exploration. Can therefore a cut-off size of polyp detection safely be installed? Is the flat lesion an issue? Can extra-colonic findings be treated efficiently? A positive relationship with the gastro-enterologists will improve the act of screening. Improvements of scanning technique and software with dose reduction, improved 3D visualisation methods and CAD are steps in the good direction. Finally, optimisation of laxative-free CTC could be invaluable in the development of CTC as a screening tool for CRC.

Virtual colonoscopy. Potential clinical applications of a new technique.

The potential role of virtual colonoscopy is not limited to colorectal cancer screening, although that is its greatest potential. Same-day VC should be offered for patients undergoing an incomplete colonoscopy. Conversely, faster, more accurate interpretation by the radiologist on the same day as a VC should lead to the consideration by the gastroenterologist of same-day colonoscopy for patients with a suspicious, significantly sized polyp.