Cargando…

Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

OBJECTIVE: To examine use of CT colonography (CTC) in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) and investigate detection rates. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of routinely coded BCSP data. Guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt)-positive screenees undergoing CTC from June 2006 to July 201...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Plumb, Andrew A, Halligan, Steve, Nickerson, Claire, Bassett, Paul, Goddard, Andrew F, Taylor, Stuart A, Patnick, Julietta, Burling, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23955527
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2013-304697
_version_ 1782317803651465216
author Plumb, Andrew A
Halligan, Steve
Nickerson, Claire
Bassett, Paul
Goddard, Andrew F
Taylor, Stuart A
Patnick, Julietta
Burling, David
author_facet Plumb, Andrew A
Halligan, Steve
Nickerson, Claire
Bassett, Paul
Goddard, Andrew F
Taylor, Stuart A
Patnick, Julietta
Burling, David
author_sort Plumb, Andrew A
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To examine use of CT colonography (CTC) in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) and investigate detection rates. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of routinely coded BCSP data. Guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt)-positive screenees undergoing CTC from June 2006 to July 2012 as their first-line colonic investigation were included. Abnormalities found at CTC, subsequent polyp, adenoma and cancer detection and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. Detection rates were compared with those observed in gFOBt-positive screenees investigated by colonoscopy. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with variable detection. RESULTS: 2731 screenees underwent CTC. Colorectal cancer (CRC) or polyps were suspected in 1027 individuals (37.6%; 95% CI 33.8% to 41.4%); 911 of these underwent confirmatory testing. 124 screenees had CRC (4.5%) and 533 had polyps (19.5%), 468 adenomatous (17.1%). Overall detection was 24.1% (95% CI 21.5% to 26.6%) for CRC or polyps and 21.7% (95% CI 19.2% to 24.1%) for CRC or adenoma. Advanced neoplasia was detected in 504 screenees (18.5%; 95% CI 16.1% to 20.8%). PPV for CRC or polyp was 72.1% (95% CI 66.6% to 77.6%). By comparison, 9.0% of 72 817 screenees undergoing colonoscopy had cancer and 50.6% had polyps; advanced neoplasia was detected in 32.7%. CTC detection rates and PPV were higher at centres with experienced radiologists (>1000 examinations) and at high-volume centres (>175 cases/radiologist/annum). Centres using three-dimensional interpretation detected more neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: In the BCSP, detection rates after positive gFOBt are lower for CTC than colonoscopy, although populations undergoing the two tests are different. Centres with more experienced radiologists have higher detection and accuracy. Rigorous quality assurance of BCSP radiology is needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4033278
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40332782014-06-05 Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Plumb, Andrew A Halligan, Steve Nickerson, Claire Bassett, Paul Goddard, Andrew F Taylor, Stuart A Patnick, Julietta Burling, David Gut Colorectal Cancer OBJECTIVE: To examine use of CT colonography (CTC) in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) and investigate detection rates. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of routinely coded BCSP data. Guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt)-positive screenees undergoing CTC from June 2006 to July 2012 as their first-line colonic investigation were included. Abnormalities found at CTC, subsequent polyp, adenoma and cancer detection and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. Detection rates were compared with those observed in gFOBt-positive screenees investigated by colonoscopy. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with variable detection. RESULTS: 2731 screenees underwent CTC. Colorectal cancer (CRC) or polyps were suspected in 1027 individuals (37.6%; 95% CI 33.8% to 41.4%); 911 of these underwent confirmatory testing. 124 screenees had CRC (4.5%) and 533 had polyps (19.5%), 468 adenomatous (17.1%). Overall detection was 24.1% (95% CI 21.5% to 26.6%) for CRC or polyps and 21.7% (95% CI 19.2% to 24.1%) for CRC or adenoma. Advanced neoplasia was detected in 504 screenees (18.5%; 95% CI 16.1% to 20.8%). PPV for CRC or polyp was 72.1% (95% CI 66.6% to 77.6%). By comparison, 9.0% of 72 817 screenees undergoing colonoscopy had cancer and 50.6% had polyps; advanced neoplasia was detected in 32.7%. CTC detection rates and PPV were higher at centres with experienced radiologists (>1000 examinations) and at high-volume centres (>175 cases/radiologist/annum). Centres using three-dimensional interpretation detected more neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: In the BCSP, detection rates after positive gFOBt are lower for CTC than colonoscopy, although populations undergoing the two tests are different. Centres with more experienced radiologists have higher detection and accuracy. Rigorous quality assurance of BCSP radiology is needed. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-06 2013-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4033278/ /pubmed/23955527 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2013-304697 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
spellingShingle Colorectal Cancer
Plumb, Andrew A
Halligan, Steve
Nickerson, Claire
Bassett, Paul
Goddard, Andrew F
Taylor, Stuart A
Patnick, Julietta
Burling, David
Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme
title Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme
title_full Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme
title_fullStr Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme
title_full_unstemmed Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme
title_short Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme
title_sort use of ct colonography in the english bowel cancer screening programme
topic Colorectal Cancer
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23955527
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2013-304697
work_keys_str_mv AT plumbandrewa useofctcolonographyintheenglishbowelcancerscreeningprogramme
AT halligansteve useofctcolonographyintheenglishbowelcancerscreeningprogramme
AT nickersonclaire useofctcolonographyintheenglishbowelcancerscreeningprogramme
AT bassettpaul useofctcolonographyintheenglishbowelcancerscreeningprogramme
AT goddardandrewf useofctcolonographyintheenglishbowelcancerscreeningprogramme
AT taylorstuarta useofctcolonographyintheenglishbowelcancerscreeningprogramme
AT patnickjulietta useofctcolonographyintheenglishbowelcancerscreeningprogramme
AT burlingdavid useofctcolonographyintheenglishbowelcancerscreeningprogramme