CT colonography: performance and program outcome measures in an older screening population.

Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA.
Radiology (Impact Factor: 6.21). 02/2010; 254(2):493-500. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09091478
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate computed tomographic (CT) colonography performance and program outcome measures in an older cohort (65-79 years) of an established large-scale colorectal cancer screening program.
This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board; informed consent waived. Retrospective analysis of the 65-79-year-old cohort (n = 577) from the University of Wisconsin CT colonography screening program (n = 5176) was undertaken. Performance and outcome measures including advanced neoplasia prevalence and colonoscopy referral, extracolonic finding, extracolonic work-up, and complication rates were obtained by using a CT colonography database and review of medical records. Comparisons between the older cohort and the general screening population were made by using the Student t, Pearson chi(2), and Fisher exact tests. A P value <or= .05 was considered to indicate a significant difference.
With a 6-mm threshold for positivity, the overall referral rate to optical colonoscopy was 15.3% (88 of 577), leading to 277 polypectomies and the removal of 103 nondiminutive adenomas. For adenomas, the per-patient positivity rates were 10.9% (63 of 577) and 6.8% (39 of 577) at the 6- and 10-mm thresholds, respectively. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia was 7.6% (44 of 577). Fifty-four adenomas met advanced status, and five unsuspected cancers were detected. The advanced neoplasias identified were typically large, with a mean size of 21 mm. Potentially important extracolonic findings were seen in 15.4% (89 of 577) of patients, with a work-up rate of 7.8% (45 of 577). The majority of important extracolonic diagnoses were vascular aneurysms (n = 18). No major complications were encountered.
CT colonography is a safe and effective screening modality for the older population.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse event risks associated with optical colonoscopy (OC) among Medicare outpatients who received computed tomography colonography (CTC) as their initial method of colorectal evaluation. Medicare claims were compared between 6,114 outpatients ≥ 66 years who received initial CTC and 149,202 outpatients who received initial OC between January 2007 and December 2008. OC patients were matched on county of residence and year of evaluation. Outcomes included lower gastrointestinal bleeding, gastrointestinal perforation, other gastrointestinal events and cardiovascular events resulting in an emergency department visit or hospitalization within 30 days. Among 1,000 outpatients undergoing initial CTC, 12.4 experienced lower gastrointestinal bleeding, 0.7 perforation, 18.0 other gastrointestinal events and 45.5 cardiovascular events within 30 days. After multivariate adjustment, risks of lower gastrointestinal bleeding, other gastrointestinal events and cardiovascular events were higher with initial OC than CTC, with or without subsequent OC (OR 1.91 95CI [1.47,2.49], OR 1.35 95CI [1.07,1.69] and OR 1.38 95CI [1.18,1.62], respectively); however, perforation risk did not differ (p=0.10). This pattern is similar in older and symptomatic populations. Rates of gastrointestinal bleeding, other gastrointestinal events and cardiovascular events are lower following initial CTC than OC, but rates of perforation do not differ.
    12/2014; 1:3-8. DOI:10.1016/j.pmedr.2014.08.001
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE. The goals of this article are to provide an overview of controversial aspects of imaging-based screening and to elucidate potential risks that may offset anticipated benefits. CONCLUSION. Current controversial topics associated with imaging-based screening include false-positive results, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, radiation risks, and costs. Alongside the benefits of screening, radiologists should be prepared to discuss these additional diagnostic consequences with providers and patients to better guide shared decision making regarding imaging-based screening.
    American Journal of Roentgenology 11/2014; 203(5):952-6. DOI:10.2214/AJR.14.13049 · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare differences in Medicare costs 1 year after initial computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or initial optical colonoscopy (OC). We performed a retrospective cohort study of asymptomatic Medicare outpatients aged ≥66 years who received initial CTC (n = 531) or OC (n = 17,593) between January 2007 and December 2008; initial OC patients were matched on county of residence and year of screening. Outcomes included differences in total inpatient and outpatient Medicare costs 1 year after initial CTC or OC and differences in outpatient testing of potential findings in the colon, abdomen, pelvis, and lungs. Higher adjusted costs per patient were revealed in the year after initial CTC compared to initial OC for outpatient testing related to potential colonic ($50; 95% confidence interval [CI], $12-$88; P = .010) and extracolonic findings ($64; 95% CI, $23-$106; P = .002). However, there were no differences in adjusted total costs per patient in the year after either modality ($2065; 95% CI, $1672-$5803; P = .28). Similarly, adjusted costs did not differ between cohorts for inpatient ($267; 95% CI, $1017-$1550; P = .68) or outpatient care ($2828; 95% CI, $311-$5966; P = .08). Despite higher adjusted costs of outpatient testing potentially related to colonic and extracolonic findings among asymptomatic elderly patients 1 year after initial CTC compared to OC, we found no differences in adjusted total, inpatient, or outpatient costs between cohorts. Although Medicare does not cover screening CTC, our results suggest that these modalities generate comparable downstream costs to payers. Copyright © 2015 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Academic radiology 04/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.acra.2015.03.002 · 2.08 Impact Factor