The effect of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on smoking status, quit attempts, and receipt of cessation support among adults with cancer: Results from nine ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 740 patients completing the C-TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69-7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64-10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

A randomized study of genetic education versus usual care in tumor profiling for advanced cancer in the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (EAQ152).

BACKGROUND: Enthusiasm for precision oncology may obscure the psychosocial and ethical considerations associated with the implementation of tumor genetic sequencing. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer undergoing tumor-only genetic sequencing in the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial were randomized to a web-based genetic education intervention or usual care. The primary outcomes were knowledge, anxiety, depression, and cancer-specific distress collected at baseline (T0), posteducation (T1) and after results (T2). Two-sided, 2-sample t tests and univariate and multivariable generalized linear models were used. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-four patients (80% from NCI Community Oncology Research Program sites) were randomized to the web intervention (n = 293) or usual care (n = 301) before the receipt of results. Patients in the intervention arm had greater increases in knowledge (P for T1-T0 < .0001; P for T2-T0 = .003), but there were no significant differences in distress outcomes. In unadjusted moderator analyses, there was a decrease in cancer-specific distress among women (T0-T1) in the intervention arm but not among men. Patients with lower health literacy in the intervention arm had greater increases in cancer-specific distress and less decline in general anxiety (T0-T1) and greater increases in depression (T0-T2) in comparison with those receiving usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based genetic education before tumor-only sequencing results increases patient understanding and reduces distress in women. Refinements to the intervention could benefit low-literacy groups and men.

Study protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial testing virtual tobacco treatment in oncology practices [Smokefree Support Study 2.0].

BACKGROUND: Persistent smoking among patients diagnosed with cancer is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, yet an evidence-based tobacco use intervention has not been well-integrated into cancer care in community oncology settings. This paper describes the protocol of a nation-wide clinical trial conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base to assess the effectiveness of a virtual tobacco treatment intervention and the process of implementing tobacco treatment in NCORP community oncology settings. METHODS/DESIGN: This two-arm, multisite (n: 49 NCORP sites) hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial compares the effectiveness of a Virtual Intervention Treatment (VIT) versus an Enhanced Usual Control (EUC) among English and Spanish speaking patients recently diagnosed with cancer, reporting current smoking and receiving care at a participating NCORP Community or Minority/Underserved Site. The VIT includes up to 11 virtual counseling sessions with a tobacco treatment specialist and up to 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The EUC arm receives a referral to the NCI Quitline. The primary study outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence. Moderators of treatment effect will be assessed. The study evaluates implementation processes from participating NCORP site staff via survey, administrative, and focus group data, including reach, acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, feasibility, adoption, cost and sustainability outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will generate findings about the effectiveness of an evidence-based virtual tobacco treatment intervention targeting patients diagnosed with cancer and illuminate barriers and facilitators that influence implementing tobacco treatment into community oncology settings nationally. In the era of COVID-19, virtual care solutions are vital for maximizing access and utilization of tobacco treatment delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03808818) on January 18th, 2019; Last update posted: May 21st, 2020.

MR spectroscopy of breast cancer for assessing early treatment response: Results from the ACRIN 6657 MRS trial.

PURPOSE: To estimate the accuracy of predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer using MR spectroscopy (MRS) measurements made very early in treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant protocol was approved by the American College of Radiology and local-site institutional review boards. One hundred nineteen women with invasive breast cancer of ≥3 cm undergoing NACT were enrolled between September 2007 and April 2010. MRS measurements of the concentration of choline-containing compounds ([tCho]) were performed before the first chemotherapy regimen (time point 1, TP1) and 20-96 h after the first cycle of treatment (TP2). The change in [tCho] was assessed for its ability to predict pathologic complete response (pCR) and radiologic response using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of the 119 subjects enrolled, only 29 cases (24%) with eight pCRs provided usable data for the primary analysis. Technical challenges in acquiring quantitative MRS data in a multi-site trial setting limited the capture of usable data. In this limited data set, the decrease in tCho from TP1 to TP2 had poor ability to predict either pCR (AUC = 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.79) or radiologic response (AUC = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27-0.75). CONCLUSION: The technical difficulty of acquiring quantitative MRS data in a multi-site clinical trial setting led to a low yield of analyzable data, which was insufficient to accurately measure the ability of early MRS measurements to predict response to NACT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;46:290-302.

CT colonography for the detection of nonpolypoid adenomas: sensitivity assessed with restricted national CT colonography trial criteria.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of nonpolypoid adenomas and the sensitivity of CT colonography (CTC) in their detection by use of the restricted criteria of height-to-width ratio<50% and height elevation≤3 mm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the National CT Colonography Trial (American College of Radiology Imaging Network protocol 6664), a cohort of 2531 participants without symptoms underwent CTC and screening colonoscopy. The CTC examinations were interpreted with both 2D and 3D techniques. Nonpolypoid adenomatous polyps identified with CTC or colonoscopy were retrospectively reviewed to determine which polyps met the restricted criteria. The prevalence of nonpolypoid adenomas and the prospective sensitivity of CTC were determined. Descriptive statistics were used to report the prevalence, size, and histologic features. The sensitivities (with 95% CIs) for nonpolypoid and polypoid lesions were compared by two-sided Z test for independent binomial proportions. RESULTS: The retrospective review confirmed 21 nonpolypoid adenomas, yielding a prevalence of 0.83% (21 of 2531 participants). Eight (38.1%) were advanced adenomas, many (50% [4/8]) only because of large size (≥10 mm). The overall per polyp sensitivity of CTC (combined 2D and 3D interpretation) for detecting nonpolypoid adenomas≥5 mm (n=21) was 0.76; ≥6 mm (n=16), 0.75; and ≥10 mm (n=5), 0.80. These values were not statistically different from the sensitivity of detecting polypoid adenomas (p>0.37). CONCLUSION: In this large screening population, nonpolypoid adenomas had a very low prevalence (<1%), and advanced pathologic features were uncommon in polyps<10 mm in diameter. Most nonpolypoid adenomas are technically visible at CTC. The prospective sensitivity is similar to that for polypoid adenomas when the interpretation combines both 2D and 3D review.

Cigarette and Alternative Tobacco Product Use among Adult Cancer Survivors Enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: While cigarette smoking has declined among the U.S. general population, sale and use of non-cigarette alternative tobacco products (ATP; e.g., e-cigarettes, cigars) and dual use of cigarettes/ATPs are rising. Little is known about ATP use patterns in cancer survivors enrolled in clinical trials. We investigated prevalence of tobacco product use, and factors associated with past 30-day use, among patients with cancer in national trials. METHODS: Cancer survivors (N = 756) enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials (2017-2021) completed a modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) which assessed baseline cigarette and ATP use since cancer diagnosis and in the past 30 days. RESULTS: Patients were on average 59 years old, 70% male, and the mean time since cancer diagnosis was 26 months. Since diagnosis, cigarettes (21%) were the most common tobacco product used, followed by smokeless tobacco use (5%), cigars (4%), and e-cigarettes (2%). In the past 30 days, 12% of patients reported smoking cigarettes, 4% cigars, 4% using smokeless tobacco, and 2% e-cigarettes. Since cancer diagnosis, 5.5% of the sample reported multiple tobacco product use, and 3.0% reported multiple product use in the past 30 days. Males (vs. females; OR 4.33; P = 0 < 0.01) and individuals not living with another person who smokes (vs. living with; OR, 8.07; P = 0 < 0.01) were more likely to use ATPs only versus cigarettes only in the past 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cancer, cigarettes were the most prevalent tobacco product reported. IMPACT: Regardless, ATPs and multiple tobacco product use should be routinely assessed in cancer care settings.

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.

Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a noninvasive option in screening for colorectal cancer. However, its accuracy as a screening tool in asymptomatic adults has not been well defined. METHODS: We recruited 2600 asymptomatic study participants, 50 years of age or older, at 15 study centers. CT colonographic images were acquired with the use of standard bowel preparation, stool and fluid tagging, mechanical insufflation, and multidetector-row CT scanners (with 16 or more rows). Radiologists trained in CT colonography reported all lesions measuring 5 mm or more in diameter. Optical colonoscopy and histologic review were performed according to established clinical protocols at each center and served as the reference standard. The primary end point was detection by CT colonography of histologically confirmed large adenomas and adenocarcinomas (10 mm in diameter or larger) that had been detected by colonoscopy; detection of smaller colorectal lesions (6 to 9 mm in diameter) was also evaluated. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 2531 participants (97%). For large adenomas and cancers, the mean (+/-SE) per-patient estimates of the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for CT colonography were 0.90+/-0.03, 0.86+/-0.02, 0.23+/-0.02, 0.99+/-<0.01, and 0.89+/-0.02, respectively. The sensitivity of 0.90 (i.e., 90%) indicates that CT colonography failed to detect a lesion measuring 10 mm or more in diameter in 10% of patients. The per-polyp sensitivity for large adenomas or cancers was 0.84+/-0.04. The per-patient sensitivity for detecting adenomas that were 6 mm or more in diameter was 0.78. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of asymptomatic adults, CT colonographic screening identified 90% of subjects with adenomas or cancers measuring 10 mm or more in diameter. These findings augment published data on the role of CT colonography in screening patients with an average risk of colorectal cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00084929; American College of Radiology Imaging Network [ACRIN] number, 6664.)

Comparative economic evaluation of data from the ACRIN National CT Colonography Trial with three cancer intervention and surveillance modeling network microsimulations.

PURPOSE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk asymptomatic subjects in the United States aged 50 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enrollees in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network National CT Colonography Trial provided informed consent, and approval was obtained from the institutional review board at each site. CT colonography performance estimates from the trial were incorporated into three Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network CRC microsimulations. Simulated survival and lifetime costs for screening 50-year-old subjects in the United States with CT colonography every 5 or 10 years were compared with those for guideline-concordant screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus either sensitive unrehydrated fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and no screening. Perfect and reduced screening adherence scenarios were considered. Incremental cost-effectiveness and net health benefits were estimated from the U.S. health care sector perspective, assuming a 3% discount rate. RESULTS: CT colonography at 5- and 10-year screening intervals was more costly and less effective than FOBT plus flexible sigmoidoscopy in all three models in both 100% and 50% adherence scenarios. Colonoscopy also was more costly and less effective than FOBT plus flexible sigmoidoscopy, except in the CRC-SPIN model assuming 100% adherence (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $26,300 per life-year gained). CT colonography at 5- and 10-year screening intervals and colonoscopy were net beneficial compared with no screening in all model scenarios. The 5-year screening interval was net beneficial over the 10-year interval except in the MISCAN model when assuming 100% adherence and willingness to pay $50,000 per life-year gained. CONCLUSION: All three models predict CT colonography to be more costly and less effective than non-CT colonographic screening but net beneficial compared with no screening given model assumptions.

ACRIN CT colonography trial: does reader's preference for primary two-dimensional versus primary three-dimensional interpretation affect performance?

PURPOSE: To determine whether the reader's preference for a primary two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) computed tomographic (CT) colonographic interpretation method affects performance when using each technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, images from 2531 CT colonographic examinations were interpreted by 15 trained radiologists by using colonoscopy as a reference standard. Through a survey at study start, study end, and 6-month intervals, readers were asked whether their interpretive preference in clinical practice was to perform a primary 2D, primary 3D, or both 2D and 3D interpretation. Readers were randomly assigned a primary interpretation method (2D or 3D) for each CT colonographic examination. Sensitivity and specificity of each method (primary 2D or 3D), for detecting polyps of 10 mm or larger and 6 mm or larger, based on interpretive preference were estimated by using resampling methods. RESULTS: Little change was observed in readers' preferences when comparing them at study start and study end, respectively, as follows: primary 2D (eight and seven readers), primary 3D (one and two readers), and both 2D and 3D (six and six readers). Sensitivity and specificity, respectively, for identifying examinations with polyps of 10 mm or larger for readers with a primary 2D preference (n = 1128 examinations) were 0.84 and 0.86, which was not significantly different from 0.84 and 0.83 for readers who preferred 2D and 3D (n = 1025 examinations) or from 0.76 and 0.82 for readers with a primary 3D preference (n = 378 examinations). When performance by using the assigned 2D or 3D method was evaluated on the basis of 2D or 3D preference, there was no difference among those readers by using their preferred versus not preferred method of interpretation. Similarly, no significant difference among readers or preferences was seen when performance was evaluated for detection of polyps of 6 mm or larger. CONCLUSION: The reader's preference for interpretive method had no effect on CT colonographic performance.

Can radiologist training and testing ensure high performance in CT colonography? Lessons From the National CT Colonography Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to describe the experience of the National CT Colonography Trial with radiologist training and qualification testing at CT colonography (CTC) and to correlate this experience with subsequent performance in a prospective screening study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ten inexperienced radiologists participated in a 1-day educational course, during which partial CTC examinations of 27 cases with neoplasia and full CTC examinations of 15 cases were reviewed using primary 2D and 3D search. Subsequently 15 radiologists took a qualification examination composed of 20 CTC cases. Radiologists who did not pass the first qualification examination attended a second day of focused retraining of 30 cases, which was followed by a second qualification examination. The results of the initial and subsequent qualification tests were compared with reader performance in a large prospective screening trial. RESULTS: All radiologists took and passed the qualification examinations. Seven radiologists passed the qualification examination the first time it was offered, and eight radiologists passed after focused retraining. Significantly better sensitivities were obtained on the second versus the first examination for the retrained radiologists (difference = 16%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in sensitivities between the groups who passed the qualification examination the first time versus those who passed the second time in the prospective study (88% vs 92%, respectively; p = 0.612). In the prospective study, the odds of correctly identifying diseased cases increased by 1.5 fold for every 50-case increase in reader experience or formal training (p < 0.025). CONCLUSION: A significant difference in performance was observed among radiologists before formalized training, but testing and focused retraining improved radiologist performance, resulting in an overall high sensitivity across radiologists in a subsequent, prospective screening study.

Repeatability and Reproducibility of ADC Histogram Metrics from the ACRIN 6698 Breast Cancer Therapy Response Trial.

Mean tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of breast cancer showed excellent repeatability but only moderate predictive power for breast cancer therapy response in the ACRIN 6698 multicenter imaging trial. Previous single-center studies have shown improved predictive performance for alternative ADC histogram metrics related to low ADC dense tumor volume. Using test/retest (TT/RT) 4 b-value diffusion-weighted imaging acquisitions from pretreatment or early-treatment time-points on 71 ACRIN 6698 patients, we evaluated repeatability for ADC histogram metrics to establish confidence intervals and inform predictive models for future therapy response analysis. Histograms were generated using regions of interest (ROIs) defined separately for TT and RT diffusion-weighted imaging. TT/RT repeatability and intra- and inter-reader reproducibility (on a 20-patient subset) were evaluated using wCV and Bland-Altman limits of agreement for histogram percentiles, low-ADC dense tumor volumes, and fractional volumes (normalized to total histogram volume). Pearson correlation was used to reveal connections between metrics and ROI variability across the sample cohort. Low percentiles (15th and 25th) were highly repeatable and reproducible, wCV < 8.1%, comparable to mean ADC values previously reported. Volumetric metrics had higher wCV values in all cases, with fractional volumes somewhat better but at least 3 times higher than percentile wCVs. These metrics appear most sensitive to ADC changes around a threshold of 1.2 µm2/ms. Volumetric results were moderately to strongly correlated with ROI size. In conclusion, Lower histogram percentiles have comparable repeatability to mean ADC, while ADC-thresholded volumetric measures currently have poor repeatability but may benefit from improvements in ROI techniques.

Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The DMIST (Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial) reported improved breast cancer detection with digital mammography compared with film mammography in selected population subgroups, but it did not assess the economic value of digital relative to film mammography screening. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening for breast cancer. DESIGN: Validated, discrete-event simulation model. DATA SOURCES: Data from DMIST and publicly available U.S. data. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. women age 40 years or older. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal and Medicare. INTERVENTION: All-film mammography screening; all-digital mammography screening; and targeted digital mammography screening, which is age-targeted digital mammography (for women <50 years of age) and age- and density-targeted digital mammography (for women <50 years of age or women > or =50 years of age with dense breasts). OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: All-digital mammography screening cost $331,000 (95% CI, $268,000 to $403,000) per QALY gained relative to all-film mammography screening but was more costly and less effective than targeted digital mammography screening. Targeted digital mammography screening resulted in more screen-detected cases of cancer and fewer deaths from cancer than either all-film or all-digital mammography screening, with cost-effectiveness estimates ranging from $26,500 (CI, $21,000 to $33,000) per QALY gained for age-targeted digital mammography to $84,500 (CI, $75,000 to $93,000) per QALY gained for age- and density-targeted digital mammography. In the Medicare population, the cost-effectiveness of density-targeted digital mammography screening varied from a base-case estimate of $97,000 (CI, $77,000 to $131,000) to $257,000 per QALY gained (CI, $91,000 to $536,000) in the alternative-case analyses, in which the sensitivity of film mammography was increased and the sensitivity of digital mammography in women with nondense breasts was decreased. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were sensitive to the cost of digital mammography and to the prevalence of dense breasts. LIMITATIONS: Results were dependent on model assumptions and DMIST findings. CONCLUSION: Relative to film mammography, screening for breast cancer by using all-digital mammography is not cost-effective. Age-targeted screening with digital mammography seems cost-effective, whereas density-targeted screening strategies are more costly and of uncertain value, particularly among women age 65 years or older.

Decreased laboratory testing for lecithin-to-sphingomyelin ratio and phosphatidylglycerol after fetal lung maturity assessment from lamellar body count in amniotic fluid.

The objectives of this study were to do inexpensive lamellar body count (LBC) in amniotic fluid, to do statistical analysis to evaluate cutoff values for fetal lung maturity (FLM) and fetal lung immaturity (FLI), to derive a threshold for obtaining a lecithin-to-sphingomyelin (L/S) ratio and phosphatidylglycerol percentage (%PG), and to determine the potential cost savings to the hospital if they use this new method. Testing (LBC, L/S ratio, and %PG) was done on 123 specimens of amniotic fluid. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, discriminant, linear regression, chi2, and cost analyses were used to evaluate the laboratory and financial parameters. Lamellar body counts of greater than 41,500 (Coulter MAXM: sensitivity, 90.5%; specificity, 87.7%; positive predictive value, 79.2%; negative predictive value, 94.7%) and greater than 32,000 (Coulter Gen.S: sensitivity, 90.5%; specificity, 85.2%; positive predictive value, 76.0%; negative predictive value, 94.5%) were the best threshold for biochemical FLM. Similarly, LBC of less than 24,000 (MAXM: sensitivity, 78.6%; specificity, 100%; positive predictive value, 100%; negative predictive value, 90.0%) and less than 21,000 (Gen.S: sensitivity, 71.4%; specificity, 100%; positive predictive value, 100%; negative predictive value, 87.1%) provided the best statistical cutoff for biochemical FLI from discriminant analysis. The authors concluded that FLM and FLI can be predicted with reasonable accuracy from LBC in amniotic fluid specimens. The expensive and not easily accessible L/S ratio and %PG can then be done only in cases in which LBC indicates transitional FLM. A cascade approach results in 86% savings to the hospital if the L/S ratio and %PG are not sent to a reference laboratory.

Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: No multicenter study has been reported evaluating the performance and interobserver variability of computerized tomographic colonography. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of computerized tomographic colonography for detecting clinically important colorectal neoplasia (polyps >or=10 mm in diameter) in a multi-institutional study. METHODS: A retrospective study was developed from 341 patients who had computerized tomographic colonography and colonoscopy among 8 medical centers. Colonoscopy and pathology reports provided the standard. A random sample of 117 patients, stratified by criterion standard, was requested. Ninety-three patients were included (47% with polyps >or=10 mm; mean age, 62 years; 56% men; 84% white; 40% reported colorectal symptoms; 74% at increased risk for colorectal cancer). Eighteen radiologists blinded to the criterion standard interpreted computerized tomography colonography examinations, each using 2 of 3 different software display platforms. RESULTS: The average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for identifying patients with at least 1 lesion >or=10 mm was 0.80 (95% lower confidence bound, 0.74). The average sensitivity and specificity were 75% (95% lower confidence bound, 68%) and 73% (95% lower confidence bound, 66%), respectively. Per-polyp sensitivity was 75%. A trend was observed for better performance with more observer experience. There was no difference in performance across software display platforms. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized tomographic colonography performance compared favorably with reported performance of fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema. A prospective study evaluating the performance of computerized tomography colonography in a screening population is indicated.