Gastroenterology
Volume 131, Issue 4 , Pages 1011-1019, October 2006

Risk Stratification for Colon Neoplasia: Screening Strategies Using Colonoscopy and Computerized Tomographic Colonography

  • Otto S. Lin

      Affiliations

    • Gastroenterology Section, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
    • Gastroenterology Division, ChangHua Christian Medical Center, ChangHua, Taiwan
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress requests for reprints to: Otto Lin, MD, C3-Gas, Gastroenterology Section, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 1100 Ninth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. fax: (206) 223-6379.
  • ,
  • Richard A. Kozarek

      Affiliations

    • Gastroenterology Section, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
  • ,
  • Drew B. Schembre

      Affiliations

    • Gastroenterology Section, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
  • ,
  • Kamran Ayub

      Affiliations

    • Gastroenterology Section, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
  • ,
  • Michael Gluck

      Affiliations

    • Gastroenterology Section, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
  • ,
  • Nico Cantone

      Affiliations

    • Gastroenterology Section, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
  • ,
  • Maw–Soan Soon

      Affiliations

    • Gastroenterology Division, ChangHua Christian Medical Center, ChangHua, Taiwan
  • ,
  • Jason A. Dominitz

      Affiliations

    • Gastroenterology Division, VA Puget Sound Health Care System and University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Received 16 August 2005; accepted 21 June 2006.

Background & Aims: We developed a risk index to identify low-risk patients who may be screened for colorectal cancer with computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) instead of colonoscopy. Methods: Asymptomatic persons aged 50 years or older who had undergone screening colonoscopy were randomized retrospectively to derivation (n = 1512) and validation (n = 1493) subgroups. We developed a risk index (based on age, sex, and family history) from the derivation group. The expected results of 3 screening strategies—universal colonoscopy, universal CTC, and a stratified strategy of colonoscopy for high-risk and CTC for low-risk patients—were then compared. Outcomes for the 3 strategies were extrapolated from the known colonic findings in each patient, using sensitivity/specificity values for CTC from the medical literature. Results were validated in the validation subgroup. Results: In the derivation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% of advanced neoplasia and universal CTC detected only 70% and resulted in the largest total number of procedures and number of patients undergoing both procedures. The stratified strategy detected 92% of advanced neoplasia, requiring colonoscopy in 68% and CTC in 36% of patients, with only 4% having to undergo both procedures. In the validation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% and universal CTC detected 71% of advanced neoplasia, whereas the stratified strategy detected 89%, requiring colonoscopy in 64% and CTC in 40%. Unlike universal CTC, the stratified strategy was independent of assumptions for CTC sensitivity, specificity, and threshold for colonoscopy. Conclusions: The stratified strategy based on our risk index may optimize the yield of colonoscopic resources and reduce the number of patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Abbreviations used in this paper: CRC, colorectal cancer, CTC, computerized tomographic colonography

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0016-5085(06)01754-9

doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2006.08.015

Gastroenterology
Volume 131, Issue 4 , Pages 1011-1019, October 2006