ACR Appropriateness Criteria on colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer remains one of the most common causes of cancer death in this country. This malignancy is ideally suited for screening because the detection and removal of the precursor adenomatous polyp can prevent most colorectal cancers from ever forming. The choice of a test for screening involves consideration of various individual parameters, including patient age and the presence of risk factors for the development of colorectal cancer. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) has emerged as the leading imaging technique for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals on the basis of the evidence presented in this paper. The double-contrast barium enema is an alternative imaging test that is appropriate particularly when CTC is not available. In 2008, the American Cancer Society guideline for colorectal cancer screening was revised jointly with the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the ACR to include CTC every 5 years as an option for average-risk individuals. Computed tomographic colonography is also the preferred test for colon evaluation after an incomplete colonoscopy. Imaging tests including CTC and the double-contrast barium enema are usually not indicated for colorectal cancer screening in high-risk patients with polyposis syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease. This paper presents the new colorectal cancer imaging test ratings and is the result of evidence-based consensus by the ACR Appropriateness Criteria Expert Panel on Gastrointestinal Imaging.

The long-term efficacy of pneumatic dilatation and Heller myotomy for the treatment of achalasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Studies comparing long-term success after pneumatic dilatation (PD) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (HM) are lacking. This study compares long-term outcome of PD (single dilatation and graded approach) and laparoscopic HM and identifies risk factors for treatment failure. METHODS: A cross-sectional follow-up evaluation of an achalasia cohort treated between 1994 and 2002 was followed-up for a mean of 3.1 years. There was a total of 106 patients treated by graded PD (1-3 dilatations with progressively larger balloons) and 73 patients treated by HM (20 had failed graded PD and crossed over to HM). A symptom assessment (structured telephone interview or clinic visit) was performed and patients were given freedom from alternative therapies to determine treatment outcome. Endoscopy, manometry, and timed barium esophagram were performed to determine the cause of treatment failure. RESULTS: The success of single PD was defined as freedom from additional PDs: 62% at 6 months and 28% at 6 years (risk factors for failure: younger age, male sex, wider esophagus, and poor emptying on posttreatment timed barium esophagram). Freedom from subsequent PDs increased with each dilatation (graded PD). The success of graded PD and HM, defined as dysphagia/regurgitation less than 3 times/wk or freedom from alternative treatment, was similar: 90% vs 89% at 6 months and 44% vs 57% at 6 years (no risk factors for failure were identified). Causes of symptom recurrence were incompletely treated achalasia (96% after PD vs 64% after HM) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (4% after PD vs 36% after HM). CONCLUSIONS: No treatment cures achalasia. Short- and long-term success is similar for graded PD and laparoscopic HM. Therapeutic success decreases steadily over time. Achalasia patients need careful long-term follow-up evaluation.