Original Article
A Comparison of Colonoscopy and Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Surveillance after Polypectomy
N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1766-1772June 15, 2000
- Abstract
Background
After patients have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, it is uncertain whether colonoscopic examination or a barium enema is the better method of surveillance.
Methods
As part of the National Polyp Study, we offered colonoscopic examination and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance to patients with newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. Although barium enema was performed first, the endoscopist did not know the results.
Results
A total of 973 patients underwent one or more colonoscopic examinations for surveillance. In the case of 580 of these patients, we performed 862 paired colonoscopic examinations and barium-enema examinations that met the requirements of the protocol. The findings on barium enema were positive in 222 (26 percent) of the paired examinations, including 94 of the 242 colonoscopic examinations in which one or more adenomas were detected (rate of detection of adenomas, 39 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 33 to 45 percent). The proportion of examinations in which adenomatous polyps were detected by barium enema was significantly related to the size of the adenomas (P=0.009); the rate was 32 percent for colonoscopic examinations in which the largest adenomas detected were 0.5 cm or less, 53 percent for those in which the largest adenomas detected were 0.6 to 1.0 cm, and 48 percent for those in which the largest adenomas detected exceeded 1.0 cm. Among the 139 paired examinations with positive results on barium enema and negative results on colonoscopic examination in the same location, 19 additional polyps, 12 of which were adenomas, were detected on colonoscopic reexamination.
Conclusions
In patients who have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, colonoscopic examination is a more effective method of surveillance than double-contrast barium enema.
Media in This Article
Table 1
Characteristics of the Patients at Enrollment According to Whether They Had Paired Colonoscopic Examinations and Barium-Enema Examinations.Table 2
Characteristics of 862 Paired Colonoscopic Examinations and Double-Contrast Barium-Enema Examinations.Article Activity
- Article
It is accepted medical practice to remove adenomatous polyps when they are detected in the colon, to search for additional polyps, and to arrange for long-term follow-up of the patient. This approach is based on evidence that adenomatous polyps are precursors of colorectal cancer and that removing them will prevent colorectal cancer.1 Periodic examinations have been recommended after polypectomy because of the high frequency of detection of adenomatous polyps at follow-up.2-4 In previous analyses of data from the National Polyp Study, we assessed surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps.5,6 In the current study, we compared colonoscopic examination and double-contrast barium enema to determine whether both methods are needed for surveillance or whether barium enema could replace colonoscopic examination.7 Our study differs from prior assessments of surveillance after polypectomy because it was blinded and prospective.8-12
Methods
Patients
The National Polyp Study was a randomized, controlled trial designed to assess surveillance strategies in patients after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomas. All patients referred for initial colonoscopy or polypectomy from November 1980 to February 1990 at one of seven participating clinical centers were identified. Those with newly diagnosed adenomas who met the eligibility criteria and consented to participate were randomly assigned to undergo a colonoscopic examination three years after the initial colonoscopic examination or at both one and three years. Patients in both groups were offered a surveillance examination at six years. At each follow-up examination, the patients were offered both double-contrast barium enema and colonoscopic examination. The design of the study and follow-up results based on colonoscopic findings have been described previously.5,6 All patients provided written informed consent for their participation in the study, and the study design was approved by the institutional review board at each participating center.
Design of the Study
The study design included a prospective, blinded comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema in detecting polyps at follow-up.5,7 Only study endoscopists and radiologists performed the examinations and interpreted the results. Each center designated colon-cleansing regimens that were acceptable to the endoscopic and radiologic investigators. The regimens consisted of cathartic agents and hydration and, beginning in 1985, polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy. The use of enemas as part of the cleansing regimen was avoided before the barium enema because the products used interfered with the mucosal coating. Barium preparations were either HD-85 (Lafayette, Lafayette, Ind.) or Liquid Polibar (EZ-EM, Westbury, N.Y.). The standard barium-enema technique involved the acquisition of multiple (120 kVp) films, including horizontal-beam films. Radiologists had access to all prior films. The colonoscopic examination was performed approximately two weeks after the barium enema.
Findings on barium enema and colonoscopic examination were reported according to the location: rectum, sigmoid colon, descending colon, splenic flexure, transverse colon, hepatic flexure, ascending colon, or cecum. The size, location, and shape of each polyp were recorded. For each anatomical segment, findings of spasm, redundancy, stool, poor mucosal coating, or diverticulosis, and the level of confidence in each such finding, were reported. For barium enema, a high level of confidence indicated that the radiologist was unlikely to miss lesions that were larger than 1.0 cm, and a low level indicated that the radiologist could easily overlook a lesion that was larger than 1.0 cm. For colonoscopic examination, a high level of confidence indicated that the endoscopist had reached the cecum and could visualize the entire colon. The adequacy of the colonoscopic preparation and the completeness of the colonoscopic examination were also recorded.
The endoscopist inserted the colonoscope to the cecum and then withdrew the colonoscope to the next most distal segment of the colon. Polyps detected by colonoscopic examination were recorded for each anatomical segment by endoscopists who had no knowledge of the findings on barium enema (blinded colonoscopic examination). After the endoscopist reported observations for a given segment, the study coordinator informed the endoscopist of the results of barium enema for that segment. If there was a finding on barium enema that was not seen on colonoscopic examination, the endoscopist reexamined the segment several times with the patient in different positions until satisfied that the area was clear or a lesion had been found (unblinded colonoscopic examination). With the use of this approach, the colonoscope did not need to be reinserted after the completion of the examination and the rate of polyps missed by colonoscopic examination could be determined.
All polyps detected by colonoscopic examination were removed, measured, and then classified histologically by the pathology review team according to National Polyp Study criteria as tubular adenomas or villous adenomas class A (proportion of villous component, 1 to 25 percent), B (26 to 75 percent), C (76 to 99 percent), or D (100 percent) or as nonadenomas (hyperplastic or other types, mainly normal mucosal tags).13 After the histologic evaluation, the findings of the colonoscopic examination were classified on the basis of the presence or absence of adenomas and the size of the largest adenoma as showing no polyps, nonadenomatous polyps alone, adenomas that were no larger than 0.5 cm, adenomas that were 0.6 to 1.0 cm, or adenomas that were larger than 1.0 cm. The size of an adenoma was estimated by the endoscopist with use of open forceps during colonoscopic examination.
Statistical Analysis
The primary comparison of colonoscopic examination and double-contrast barium enema was based on the classification of the findings on barium enema as positive (any polyps) or negative (no polyps) and the classification of the colonoscopic findings according to the presence and type (size and histologic characteristics) of polyps. The colonoscopic findings reported by endoscopists before the barium-enema findings were revealed were used as the reference measure for the barium-enema findings.
A secondary analysis assessed whether the same polyps detected by colonoscopic examination were also detected by barium enema. Polyps detected by both techniques within the same or an adjoining segment and whose sizes matched within 5 mm were considered a match. The matched polyps were true positives for barium enema relative to colonoscopic examination; polyps detected by colonoscopic examination but not by barium enema were considered to have been missed by barium enema or to represent a false negative result.
SAS statistical software (version 6.12, SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.) was used for all calculations. The chi-square statistic was used to compare differences in percentages; the Mantel–Haenszel chi-square test was used to compare differences in percentages with adjustment for covariates. The regression coefficient in a logistic model was used to assess whether there was a linear trend in the rate of detection with barium enema according to the size of the adenoma. All tests were two-sided, and a P value of 0.05 or less was considered to indicate statistical significance.14
Results
Patients
Among the 1418 patients who underwent randomization,6 973 underwent one or more surveillance colonoscopic examinations, representing 80 percent of those alive and eligible for surveillance colonoscopic examination. These patients underwent 1762 surveillance colonoscopic examinations and 949 barium-enema examinations, of which 881 were paired with colonoscopic examinations. Nineteen paired examinations were excluded: the cecum was not reached in 12, the time between examinations exceeded six months in 6, and both were true in 1 case. The remaining 862 paired examinations meeting the protocol requirements were performed in 580 patients. The characteristics of these 580 patients at enrollment were similar to those of the 393 patients who did not have paired examinations (Table 1Table 1
Characteristics of the Patients at Enrollment According to Whether They Had Paired Colonoscopic Examinations and Barium-Enema Examinations.).Characteristics of the Paired Colonoscopic and Barium-Enema Examinations
The average interval between the paired examinations was 16 days (median, 10; range, 2 to 164; interquartile range, 2 to 20). There were 125 pairs (15 percent) in which the interval between examinations exceeded 30 days. Among the 862 paired examinations, 337 were performed as part of the one-year surveillance (39 percent), 361 as part of the three-year surveillance (42 percent), and 119 as part of the six-year surveillance (14 percent); 45 were performed at other times (5 percent). All were performed between November 1981 and November 1990. There were no major complications after any of the paired examinations. Findings that were reported with a high level of confidence were more frequent for colonoscopic examination than for barium enema. The confidence level for barium enema was lowest with respect to findings in the sigmoid colon because of the presence of redundancy and diverticulosis and in the ascending colon and cecum because of the presence of fecal residue and poor mucosal coating (Table 2Table 2
Characteristics of 862 Paired Colonoscopic Examinations and Double-Contrast Barium-Enema Examinations.).Findings on Examination
Polyps were detected in 392 of the 862 colonoscopic examinations (45 percent); adenomas were detected in 242 colonoscopic examinations (28 percent), and adenomas that were more than 1.0 cm were identified in 23 colonoscopic examinations (3 percent) (Table 3Table 3
Findings of 862 Paired Colonoscopic Examinations and Double-Contrast Barium-Enema Examinations.). Findings on barium enema were positive in 222 of the 862 paired examinations (26 percent) and in 139 of the 392 colonoscopic examinations in which one or more polyps were detected (rate of detection of polyps, 35 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 31 to 40 percent). In the 470 pairs of examinations in which colonoscopic examination did not detect polyps, the findings on barium enema were negative in 387 cases (rate of agreement for negative findings, 82 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 79 to 86 percent). The results of barium enema and colonoscopic examination were concordant in 526 (61 percent) of the examinations: 139 were concordant for polyps, and 387 were concordant for the absence of polyps.Overall, one or more adenomas were detected in 242 colonoscopic examinations (28 percent); of these 242, the corresponding findings on barium enema were positive in 94 examinations (rate of detection, 39 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 33 to 45 percent) (Table 3). Of the 155 colonoscopic examinations in which only small adenomas (≤0.5 cm) were detected, the findings on paired barium enema were positive in 49 examinations (rate of detection, 32 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 25 to 39 percent). Of the 64 colonoscopic examinations in which the largest adenoma was 0.6 to 1.0 cm, the findings on paired barium enema were positive in 34 examinations (rate of detection, 53 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 40 to 66 percent). Adenomas that were greater than 1.0 cm were detected in 23 colonoscopic examinations (3 percent), and the results of the corresponding barium enema were positive in 11 examinations (rate of detection, 48 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 24 to 67 percent). The rate of detection for barium enema was significantly related to the size of the largest adenoma detected by colonoscopic examination (P=0.009).
In the paired examinations, two malignant polyps were detected by surveillance colonoscopic examination and were included in the group of adenomas that were larger than 1.0 cm.1 One of these cancers was detected by barium enema, and one was not. Both these cancers were 1.5-cm cecal cancers. Three additional malignant polyps were detected by surveillance colonoscopic examination, but in these cases paired examinations were not performed.1
Characteristics of the Polyps Identified
The polyps detected by colonoscopic examination were matched according to size and location with polyps detected by barium enema and were the basis for the secondary analysis of the rate of detection associated with barium enema (Table 4Table 4
Histologic Characteristics, Sizes, and Locations of 791 Polyps According to Whether They Were Detected by Barium Enema.). The 862 blinded colonoscopic examinations that were matched with barium-enema examinations detected 791 polyps, of which 375 were adenomas (47 percent) and 416 were nonadenomas (53 percent). Barium enema detected 160 of the 791 polyps detected by colonoscopic examination (20 percent). The rate of detection of adenomas by barium enema was significantly related to the size of the adenomas (P<0.001) and was lower for the 270 adenomas that were 0.5 cm or less (21 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 17 to 26 percent) than for those that were 0.6 to 1.0 cm (42 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 31 to 54 percent) and those that were more than 1.0 cm (46 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 26 to 67 percent). The location of the adenomas also significantly affected the rate of detection by barium enema: the rate was higher for polyps on the left side of the colon, even after adjustment for differences in the size of the adenomas between the right and left sides of the colon (P=0.01). The rate of detection of any hyperplastic polyps by barium enema was similar to the rate of detection of adenomas that were 0.5 cm or smaller (P=0.25).Results of Unblinded Colonoscopic Examination for Patients with Negative Colonoscopic Findings and Positive Barium-Enema Findings
An unblinded colonoscopic examination was done during 139 examinations in which the results of blinded colonoscopic examination of a specific location differed from those for barium enema. Nineteen additional polyps were detected by unblinded colonoscopic examination, of which 12 were adenomas (Table 5Table 5
Characteristics of 19 Polyps in 18 Patients That Were Not Detected by Blinded Colonoscopic Examination but That Were Detected by Unblinded Colonoscopic Examination.). Therefore, the rate of missed adenomas with blinded colonoscopic examination was 20 percent, since 12 were detected by unblinded colonoscopic examination in addition to the 47 adenomas already detected by blinded colonoscopic examination. The rate of missed small adenomas was 26 percent (11 of 43) and of adenomas of 0.6 to 1.0 cm, 6 percent (1 of 16). No adenomas that were greater than 1.0 cm were missed.Discussion
Since its introduction in the early 1970s, colonoscopy has become an important diagnostic and therapeutic tool for the examination of the colon.15 Before colonoscopy became available, barium enema was the primary means of detection of polyps, and their removal required surgical colotomy.15 The results of studies have supported the transition from the use of barium enema to the use of colonoscopy, suggesting a greater rate of detection of colonic neoplasia with colonoscopic examination and highlighting its usefulness for biopsy and polypectomy.12,16 Our study design permitted a direct blinded comparison of colonoscopic examination with barium enema without interfering with complete colonoscopy in each patient.7 We assessed whether colonoscopic examination alone, barium enema alone, or both were needed for surveillance.
Most early studies comparing colonoscopic examination and barium enema were retrospective and did not adjust for important variables.8-12 These studies usually did not provide descriptions of the way in which polyps identified by both barium enema and colonoscopic examination were matched, and they often did not report the histologic appearance or the size of the polyps. Areas of concern in many studies have included the unequal expertise of the examiners, the use of disparate cleansing regimens for colonoscopic examination and barium enema, and the lack of blinding during examinations. In some studies, single-contrast and double-contrast examinations of the colon were combined. We used only double-contrast examinations, the allowable cleansing regimens were agreed on at a consensus meeting before the initiation of the study, all examinations were performed by endoscopic and radiologic investigators at each center who had similar levels of experience, and the examinations were carried out in a blinded fashion. During the study, we held regular meetings to ensure continued uniformity of practice and adherence to the protocol.
The prospective nature of the study allowed uniform documentation of the size, location, and pathological characteristics of the polyps.5 The process of matching polyps detected by both barium enema and colonoscopic examination required accurate mapping of polyps by radiologists and endoscopists at each examination. Several factors were considered in matching polyps. Endoscopic assessment of location may vary, especially in redundant portions of the colon. Telescoping of the bowel can increase the difficulty of pinpointing the tip of the endoscope. For this reason, determining whether a polyp seen on a barium enema is precisely the same as that seen on colonoscopic examination may not be possible. An inaccuracy could result in a false positive or a false negative result for barium enema or a false negative result for colonoscopic examination. Also, the results of direct measurement of a polyp on an x-ray film can be at variance with estimates of size seen endoscopically or direct measurements of a removed polyp. We used the size on endoscopy as the reference size, since more polyps were detected by endoscopy than by barium enema.
We found that colonoscopic examination detected many more polyps than barium enema; about half of these polyps were adenomas, and the remainder were primarily normal mucosal tags, with some hyperplastic polyps.13 The rate of detection with barium enema was related to the size of the adenomas.
A major question is whether the polyps that were not detected by barium enema are important in the long-term outcome of the patients. On the basis of prior observations in the National Polyp Study, it is clear that few clinically significant abnormalities are found after the initial colonoscopic examination.6 Only 3 percent of the surveillance colonoscopic examinations detected adenomas that were greater than 1.0 cm. This finding is understandable, given current knowledge of the slow rate of progression of adenomas to carcinomas. The best estimate of the average time that it takes for a new polyp to grow and transform into cancer is 10 to 20 years.17,18
Is combining the two procedures beneficial? Performing both would result in additional costs, inconvenience, and risk. With the use of both procedures we found only 19 additional polyps in 18 patients — 12 of which, in 11 patients, were adenomas. We did not, however, conduct a formal cost-effectiveness study.
Colonoscopy was used as the reference measure with the knowledge that it is not perfect and does miss polyps. In our study, the rate of missed adenomas was 20 percent for colonoscopic examination, and all missed polyps were 1.0 cm or smaller. This rate is similar to the rates reported in other studies. A study of back-to-back colonoscopic examinations by Hixson et al. found that 15 percent of adenomatous polyps were missed, and all were less than 1.0 cm.19 Rex et al. reported that back-to-back colonoscopic examinations missed 25 percent of adenomas that were less than 1.0 cm in size, 6 percent of adenomas that were at least 1.0 cm, and 24 percent of adenomas overall.20 In addition, the colonoscope may not reach the cecum in all cases; the rate of complete examination ranges from 80 to 95 percent.21-23 The rate of complete colonoscopic examination in our study (in which patients had already undergone a complete colonoscopic examination one or more years earlier) was 99 percent (868 of 881 examinations). Using colonoscopic examination as the reference procedure produced an unavoidable bias in favor of this procedure. We minimized this bias by using equivalent cleansing regimens for each type of examination, having investigators perform all the examinations, and using a blinded comparison agreed on before the study was initiated.7
Colonoscopic examination has become the preferred way of examining the colon for both the detection and the removal of polyps, replacing diagnostic barium enema as a means of surveillance. Our study supports this evolving clinical practice. The low rate of detection of large adenomas with barium enema is a drawback to the use of this radiologic technique as the primary surveillance tool. A double-contrast barium enema can be performed in cases in which the colonoscope does not reach the cecum.
Supported in part by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (CA-26852) and by the Tavel-Reznik Fund.
Source Information
From the Departments of Medicine (S.J.W.), Epidemiology and Biostatistics (A.G.Z.), and Pathology (S.S.S.), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York; the Department of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, and Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital, Milwaukee (E.T.S.); the Departments of Medicine (J.H.B.) and Radiology (H.A.), Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis; the Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York (J.D.W.); the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (D.H.); the Department of Radiology, Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles (J.A.H.); the Department of Medicine, Valley Presbyterian Hospital, Van Nuys, Calif. (M.S.); and the Mallory Institute of Pathology, Boston Medical Center, Boston (M.J.O., L.S.G.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Winawer at the Gastroenterology and Nutrition Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY 10021, or at winawers@mskcc.org.
Other members of the National Polyp Study Work Group are listed in the Appendix.
Other authors were Walter J. Hogan, M.D. (Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, and Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital, Milwaukee); Mansho Khilnani, M.D. (Department of Radiology, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York; deceased); Frederick W. Ackroyd, M.D. (Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston); Joel F. Panish, M.D. (Department of Medicine, Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles); Larry Kussin, M.D. (Department of Radiology, Valley Presbyterian Hospital, Van Nuys, Calif.); and Martin Edelman, M.D. (Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York).
Appendix
In addition to the authors, the following persons were members of the National Polyp Study Work Group: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Mount Sinai Hospital, New York — R. Kurtz, M. Shike, H. Gerdes, C.J. Lightdale, C. Miller, L. Hornsby-Lewis, A. Szporn, N. Harpaz, M. Fleisher, M.N. Ho, B. Diaz, J. Lapidus, R.A. Paden, M. Mandelman, H. Nazario, H. Colon, P. Kadvan; Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis — S. Ewing, T. Dobson; Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital, Milwaukee — J. Helm, R. Komorowski, F. Loo, P. Nemeth, E. McLaughlin, J. Geenan, R.P. Venu, G.K. Johnson, P. Miller (deceased), N. DeBoer; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston — S. Hedberg (deceased), P. Shellito, G.R. Dickersin, N. Horton; Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles — J. Sherman, S. Geller, M. Kojimoto; Valley Presbyterian Hospital, Van Nuys, Calif. — M. Auslander, D. Kasimian, C. Scoggins; and Pathology Review Center, Boston — C. Magrath.
- References
References
1
Winawer SJ ,Zauber AG ,Ho MN , et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977-1981
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline2
Waye JD ,Braunfeld SF . Surveillance intervals after colonoscopic polypectomy. Endoscopy 1982;14:79-81
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Matek W ,Guggenmoos-Holzmann I ,Demling L . Follow-up of patients with colorectal adenomas. Endoscopy 1985;17:175-181
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Kronborg O ,Fenger C . Prognostic evaluation of planned follow-up in patients with colorectal adenomas: an interim report. Int J Colorectal Dis 1987;2:203-207
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Winawer SJ ,Zauber AG ,O'Brien MJ , et al. The National Polyp Study: design, methods, and characteristics of patients with newly diagnosed polyps. Cancer 1992;70:Suppl:1236-1245
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Winawer SJ ,Zauber AG ,O'Brien MJ , et al. Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. N Engl J Med 1993;328:901-906
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline7
Hogan WJ ,Stewart ET ,Geenan JE ,Dodds WJ ,Bjork JT ,Leinicke JA . A prospective comparison of the accuracy of colonoscopy vs air-barium contrast exam for detection of colonic polypoid lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 1977;23:230-230 abstract.
Web of Science8
Thoeni RF ,Menuck L . Comparison of barium enema and colonoscopy in the detection of small colonic polyps. Radiology 1977;124:631-635
Web of Science | Medline9
Williams CB ,Hunt RH ,Loose H ,Riddell RH ,Sakai Y ,Swarbrick ET . Colonoscopy in the management of colon polyps. Br J Surg 1974;61:673-682
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Wolff WI ,Shinya H ,Geffen A ,Ozoktay S ,DeBeer R . Comparison of colonoscopy and the contrast enema in five hundred patients with colorectal disease. Am J Surg 1975;129:181-186
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Leinicke JA ,Dodds WJ ,Hogan WJ ,Stewart ET . A comparison of colonoscopy and roentgenography for detecting polypoid lesions of the colon. Gastrointest Radiol 1977;2:125-128
CrossRef | Medline12
Schrock TR . Colonoscopy versus barium enema in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and polyps. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1993;3:585-61013
O'Brien MJ ,Winawer SJ ,Zauber AG , et al. The National Polyp Study: patient and polyp characteristics associated with high-grade dysplasia in colorectal adenomas. Gastroenterology 1990;90:371-37914
Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific, 1987.
15
Wolf WI ,Shinya H . Polypectomy via the fiberoptic colonoscope: removal of neoplasms beyond the reach of the sigmoidoscope. N Engl J Med 1973;288:329-332
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline16
Rex DK ,Rahmani EY ,Haseman JH ,Lemmel GT ,Kaster S ,Buckley JS . Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practice. Gastroenterology 1997;112:17-23
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Wagner JL, Tunis S, Brown M, et al. The cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults: In: Young GP, Rozen P, Levin B, eds. Prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer. London: W.B. Saunders, 1996:321-56.
18
Winawer SJ ,Fletcher RH ,Miller L , et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 1997;112:594-642[Erratum, Gastroenterology 1997;112:1060, 1998;114:625.]
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Hixson LJ ,Fennerty MB ,Sampliner RE ,McGee D ,Garewal H . Prospective study of the frequency and size distribution of polyps missed by colonoscopy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990;82:1769-1772
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Rex DK ,Cutler CS ,Lemmel GT , et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997;112:24-28
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Godreau CJ . Office-based colonoscopy in a family practice. Fam Pract Res J 1992;12:313-320
Medline22
Anderson ML ,Heigh RI ,McCoy GA , et al. Accuracy of assessment of the extent of examination by experienced colonoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 1992;38:560-563
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Cass OW ,Freeman ML ,Peine CJ ,Zera RT ,Onstad GR . Objective evaluation of endoscopy skills during training. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:40-44
Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (168)
Citing Articles
1
D. J. Holroyd, S. Banerjee, M. Beavan, R. Prentice, V. Vijay, S. J. Warren. (2012) Colovaginal and colovesical fistulae: the diagnostic paradigm. Techniques in Coloproctology
CrossRef2
Manjula Julka, Manjula Cherukuri, Rahele Lameh. (2011) Screening for Cancerous and Precancerous Conditions of the Colon. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 38:3, 449-468
CrossRef3
Nigel Hall. (2011) Colorectal cancer: features and investigation. Medicine 39:5, 250-253
CrossRef4
J. S. Khan, B. J. Moran. (2011) Iatrogenic perforation at colonic imaging. Colorectal Disease 13:5, 481-493
CrossRef5
Nicola Flor, Paolo Rigamonti, Giovanni Di Leo, Andrea Pisani Ceretti, Enrico Opocher, Francesco Sardanelli, Gian Paolo Cornalba. (2011) Technical quality of CT colonography in relation with diverticular disease. European Journal of Radiology
CrossRef6
Sung Noh Hong, Dong-Hoon Yang, Young-Ho Kim, Seong-Eun Kim, Sung Jae Shin, Sung Pil Hong, Bo In Lee, Suck-Ho Lee, Dong Il Park, Hyun Soo Kim, Suk-Kyun Yang, Hyo Jong Kim, Se Hyung Kim, . (2011) A Survey for Post-polypectomy Surveillance. Intestinal Research 9:2, 118
CrossRef7
Satoru Seo, Yuhei Hamaguchi, Yukihiro Okuda, Yutaka Babazono, Yasuhiro Fujimoto, Akira Mitsuyoshi. (2011) Transabdominal Ultrasound Efficacy in Determining Colorectal Cancer Invasion Depth. The Japanese Journal of Gastroenterological Surgery 44:1, 100-107
CrossRef8
Francesco Perri, Angelo Iacobellis, Marco Gentile, Emanuele Tumino, Angelo Andriulli. (2010) The intelligent, painless, “germ-free” colonoscopy: A Columbus’ egg for increasing population adherence to colorectal cancer screening?. Digestive and Liver Disease 42:12, 839-843
CrossRef9
A. Ignjatovic, D. Burling, R. Ilangovan, S.K. Clark, S.A. Taylor, J.E. East, B.P. Saunders. (2010) Flat colon polyps: what should radiologists know?. Clinical Radiology 65:12, 958-966
CrossRef10
Theodore R Levin, Linda Rabeneck. 2010. Colorectal Cancer: Population Screening and Surveillance. , 311-323.
CrossRef11
Ana Borda Martín, José M. Martínez-Peñuela, Miguel Muñoz-Navas, Fernando Borda Celaya, Javier Jiménez Pérez, Cristina Carretero Ribón. (2010) ¿Presentan un desplazamiento hacia segmentos más proximales los adenomas metacrónicos en el cáncer colorrectal?. Gastroenterología y Hepatología 33:6, 419-424
CrossRef12
Don C. Rockey. (2010) Occult and obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: causes and clinical management. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 7:5, 265-279
CrossRef13
Daniele Lisi, C. Cesare Hassan, Massimo Crespi. (2010) Participation in colorectal cancer screening with FOBT and colonoscopy: An Italian, multicentre, randomized population study. Digestive and Liver Disease 42:5, 371-376
CrossRef14
Jerome D. Waye. (2010) Finding Polyps at Colonoscopy Previously Noted on CT Colonography. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 20:2, 293-304
CrossRef15
Amela Sofic, Serif Beslic, Igor Kocijancic, Nedzad Sehovic. (2010) CT colonography in detection of colorectal carcinoma. Radiology and Oncology 44:1, 19-23
CrossRef16
D. R. McArthur, H. Mehrzad, R. Patel, J. Dadds, A. Pallan, S. S. Karandikar, S. Roy-Choudhury. (2010) CT colonography for synchronous colorectal lesions in patients with colorectal cancer: initial experience. European Radiology 20:3, 621-629
CrossRef17
Vincenzo Pietropaolo, Cesare Hassan, Stefano Pontone, Maurizio Onorato, Giorgio Pedretti, Angelo Zullo. (2010) Ileal intubation with a transnasal endoscope. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 22:3, 374-375
CrossRef18
PERRY J. PICKHARDT, DAVID H. KIM. 2010. Colorectal Cancer Screening. , 44-50.
CrossRef19
Ji Yeon Kim, Eun Sun Jang, So Youn Park, Ju Hee Park, Hyuk Yoon, Young Soo Park, Nayoung Kim, Dong Ho Lee, Hyun Chae Jung, In Sung Song. (2010) Distinct Characteristics of Colorectal Cancer and Frequency of Right Colon Cancer in Elderly Patients of Korea. Journal of the Korean Geriatrics Society 14:3, 147
CrossRef20
John S. Goff. 2010. Occult and Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding. , 368-371.
CrossRef21
R. Scott Nelson, Alan G. Thorson. (2009) Colorectal cancer screening. Current Oncology Reports 11:6, 482-489
CrossRef22
Elizabeth G. McFarland, Joel G. Fletcher, Perry Pickhardt, Abraham Dachman, Judy Yee, Cynthia H. McCollough, Michael Macari, Paul Knechtges, Michael Zalis, Matthew Barish, David H. Kim, Kathryn J. Keysor, C. Daniel Johnson. (2009) ACR Colon Cancer Committee White Paper: Status of CT Colonography 2009. Journal of the American College of Radiology 6:11, 756-772.e4
CrossRef23
Lieberman, David A., . (2009) Screening for Colorectal Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 361:12, 1179-1187
Full Text24
David Lieberman. (2009) Colon cancer screening and surveillance controversies. Current Opinion in Gastroenterology 25:5, 422-427
CrossRef25
Van Gossum, André, Munoz-Navas, Miguel , Fernandez-Urien, Iñaqui, Carretero, Cristina, Gay, Gérard, Delvaux, Michel, Lapalus, Marie Georges, Ponchon, Thierry, Neuhaus, Horst, Philipper, Michael, Costamagna, Guido, Riccioni, Maria Elena, Spada, Cristiano, Petruzziello, Lucio, Fraser, Chris, Postgate, Aymer, Fitzpatrick, Aine, Hagenmuller, Friedrich, Keuchel, Martin, Schoofs, Nathalie, Devière, Jacques, . (2009) Capsule Endoscopy versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Polyps and Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 361:3, 264-270
Full Text26
J Skoglund Lundin, J Vandrovcova, B Song, X Zhou, M Zelada-Hedman, B Werelius, R S Houlston, A Lindblom. (2009) TGFBR1 variants TGFBR1*6A and Int7G24A are not associated with an increased familial colorectal cancer risk. British Journal of Cancer 100:10, 1674-1679
CrossRef27
Janet Bond, Mandy Tuckey. (2009) An evaluation of current methods of diagnosing colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom. Radiography 15:2, 106-112
CrossRef28
T. J. White, G. R. Avery, N. Kennan, A. M. Syed, J. E. Hartley, J. R. T. Monson. (2009) Virtual colonoscopy vs conventional colonoscopy in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer - a prospective trial of 150 patients. Colorectal Disease 11:2, 138-145
CrossRef29
R. Peravali, K. Kandiah, A. Surah, P. Murria, P. Taniere, S. Radley. (2009) Retrospective analysis of pre- and peri-operative imaging in confirmed proximal colonic cancers - possible implications for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Colorectal Disease 11:2, 146-149
CrossRef30
Robert S. Bresalier. (2009) Early Detection of and Screening for Colorectal Neoplasia. Gut and Liver 3:2, 69
CrossRef31
Ehab A. Molokhia, Allen Perkins. (2008) Preventing Cancer. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 35:4, 609-623
CrossRef32
Douglas K. Rex. (2008) Considering Double Contrast Barium Enema and Its Demise: A Case for Systematic Videorecording of Colonoscopy. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 103:12, 3149-3151
CrossRef33
Pablo Alonso-Coello, Mercè Marzo-Castillejo, Juan José Mascort, Antonio José Hervás, Luis Manuel Viña, José Antonio Ferrús, Juan Ferrándiz, Laureano López-Rivas, David Rigau, Iván Solà, Xavier Bonfill, Josep Maria Piqué. (2008) Guía de práctica clínica sobre el manejo de la rectorragia (actualización 2007). Gastroenterología y Hepatología 31:10, 652-667
CrossRef34
Cesare Hassan, Emilio Di Giulio, Perry J. Pickhardt, Angelo Zullo, Andrea Laghi, David H. Kim, Franco Iafrate, Sergio Morini. (2008) Cost Effectiveness of Colonoscopy, Based on the Appropriateness of an Indication. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 6:11, 1231-1236
CrossRef35
Koichi Nagata, Janne Näppi, Wenli Cai, Hiroyuki Yoshida. (2008) Minimum-invasive early diagnosis of colorectal cancer with CT colonography: techniques and clinical value. Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics 2:11, 1233-1246
CrossRef36
Ronald E. Myers, Terry Hyslop, Randa Sifri, Heather Bittner-Fagan, Nora C. Katurakes, James Cocroft, Melissa DiCarlo, Thomas Wolf. (2008) Tailored Navigation in Colorectal Cancer Screening. Medical Care 46:Supplement 1, S123-S131
CrossRef37
Ann G. Zauber, Theodore R. Levin, C Carl Jaffe, Barbara A. Galen, David F. Ransohoff, Martin L. Brown. (2008) Implications of New Colorectal Cancer Screening Technologies for Primary Care Practice. Medical Care 46:Supplement 1, S138-S146
CrossRef38
Charles J. Kahi, Douglas K. Rex, Thomas F. Imperiale. (2008) Screening, Surveillance, and Primary Prevention for Colorectal Cancer: A Review of the Recent Literature. Gastroenterology 135:2, 380-399
CrossRef39
David Lieberman. (2008) Screening, Surveillance, and Prevention of Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 18:3, 595-605
CrossRef40
Hind A. Beydoun, May A. Beydoun. (2008) Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes & Control 19:4, 339-359
CrossRef41
Bernard Levin, David A. Lieberman, Beth McFarland, Kimberly S. Andrews, Durado Brooks, John Bond, Chiranjeev Dash, Francis M. Giardiello, Seth Glick, David Johnson, C. Daniel Johnson, Theodore R. Levin, Perry J. Pickhardt, Douglas K. Rex, Robert A. Smith, Alan Thorson, Sidney J. Winawer. (2008) Screening and Surveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Adenomatous Polyps, 2008: A Joint Guideline From the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 134:5, 1570-1595
CrossRef42
D BURLING, A MOORE, M MARSHALL, J WELDON, C GILLEN, R BALDWIN, K SMITH, P PICKHARDT, L HONEYFIELD, S TAYLOR. (2008) Virtual colonoscopy: effect of computer-assisted detection (CAD) on radiographer performance. Clinical Radiology 63:5, 549-556
CrossRef43
Cheri L. Canon. (2008) Is There Still a Role for Double-Contrast Barium Enema Examination?. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 6:4, 389-392
CrossRef44
Geoffrey M Forbes. (2008) Colorectal cancer screening tests: pros and cons, and for whom?. Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2:2, 197-205
CrossRef45
Jack S. Mandel. (2008) Screening for Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America 37:1, 97-115
CrossRef46
Mitchell S. Cappell. (2008) Reducing the Incidence and Mortality of Colon Cancer: Mass Screening and Colonoscopic Polypectomy. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America 37:1, 129-160
CrossRef47
Susan Summerton, Elizabeth Little, Mitchell S. Cappell. (2008) CT Colonography: Current Status and Future Promise. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America 37:1, 161-189
CrossRef48
David R. Lairson, Melissa DiCarlo, Ronald E. Myers, Thomas Wolf, James Cocroft, Randa Sifri, Michael Rosenthal, Sally W. Vernon, Richard Wender. (2008) Cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening use. Cancer 112:4, 779-788
CrossRef49
C. Hassan, A. Laghi, A. Zullo, F. Iafrate, S. Morini. (2008) Q&A on diagnosis, screening and follow-up of colorectal neoplasia. Digestive and Liver Disease 40:2, 85-96
CrossRef50
Lesley-Ann Smith, Prahb Sidhu, Simranjot Sidhu, Bjorn Rembacken. (2008) Meta-analysis of Air Contrast Barium Enema, Computed Tomography Colonography, and Colonoscopy. The American Journal of Medicine 121:1, e7
CrossRef51
Alan S. Rosman, Mark A. Korsten. (2008) The Reply. The American Journal of Medicine 121:1, e9
CrossRef52
Catherine T. Frenette, Williamson B. Strum. (2007) Relative Rates of Missed Diagnosis for Colonoscopy, Barium Enema, and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in 379 Patients with Colorectal Cancer. Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer 38:2-4, 148-153
CrossRef53
G. R. LICHTENSTEIN, N. GRANDHI, M. SCHMALZ, S. R. LOTTES, W. P. FORBES, K. WALKER, B. ZHANG. (2007) Clinical trial: sodium phosphate tablets are preferred and better tolerated by patients compared to polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl tablets for bowel preparation. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 26:10, 1361-1370
CrossRef54
Ronald E. Myers, Randa Sifri, Terry Hyslop, Michael Rosenthal, Sally W. Vernon, James Cocroft, Thomas Wolf, Jocelyn Andrel, Richard Wender. (2007) A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer 110:9, 2083-2091
CrossRef55
P. O. Hendry, J. T. Jenkins, R. H. Diament. (2007) The impact of poor bowel preparation on colonoscopy: a prospective single centre study of 10
571 colonoscopies. Colorectal Disease 9:8, 745-748
CrossRef56
T CHOWDHURY, P WHELAN, O GHITA, N SEZILLE, S FOLEY. (2007) Development of a synthetic phantom for the selection of optimal scanning parameters in CAD–CT colonography. Medical Engineering & Physics 29:8, 858-867
CrossRef57
Navkiran K. Shokar, Carol A. Carlson, Susan C. Weller. (2007) Prevalence of Colorectal Cancer Testing and Screening in a Multiethnic Primary Care Population. Journal of Community Health 32:5, 311-323
CrossRef58
G. R. LICHTENSTEIN, L. B. COHEN, J. URIBARRI. (2007) Review article: bowel preparation for colonoscopy - the importance of adequate hydration. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 26:5, 633-641
CrossRef59
John B. Beckly, Walter J. P. Douie, Chris M. Hayward, Chris F. Oppong, Mark G. Coleman, David E. Beckly, Kenneth B. Hosie. (2007) Artificial Bowel Markers: A Novel Method for Measuring the Accuracy of Colonoscopy. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 50:7, 1047-1052
CrossRef60
F. Hjern, E. Jonas, B. Holmström, T. Josephson, A. Mellgren, C. Johansson. (2007) CT colonography versus colonoscopy in the follow-up of patients after diverticulitis — A prospective, comparative study. Clinical Radiology 62:7, 645-650
CrossRef61
Yong Beom Cho, Woo Yong Lee, Hae Ran Yun, Won Suk Lee, Seong Hyeon Yun, Ho-Kyung Chun. (2007) Tumor Localization for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. World Journal of Surgery 31:7, 1491-1495
CrossRef62
F. Becker, G. Nusko, J. Welke, E. G. Hahn, U. Mansmann. (2007) Follow-up after colorectal polypectomy: a benefit–risk analysis of German surveillance recommendations. International Journal of Colorectal Disease 22:8, 929-939
CrossRef63
Raffaele Bennato, Antonio Balzano. (2007) The corner of the gastroenterologist: What colonoscopy can do, what to ask to radiologist. European Journal of Radiology 61:3, 378-381
CrossRef64
M. Cadi. (2007) Place du coloscanner et de la coloscopie chez le sujet âgé. Oncologie 9:3, 204-208
CrossRef65
Alan S. Rosman, Mark A. Korsten. (2007) Meta-analysis Comparing CT Colonography, Air Contrast Barium Enema, and Colonoscopy. The American Journal of Medicine 120:3, 203-210.e4
CrossRef66
Stacy B Menees, Dee E Fenner. (2007) Colon cancer screening in women. Women's Health 3:2, 163-172
CrossRef67
Thomas Mang, Anno Graser, Wolfgang Schima, Andrea Maier. (2007) CT colonography: Techniques, indications, findings. European Journal of Radiology 61:3, 388-399
CrossRef68
K. J. Andresen. (2007) Virtual Colonoscopy. Imaging Decisions MRI 11:1, 21-28
CrossRef69
Arye Blachar, Moshe Graif, Ada Kessler, Jacob Sosna. (2007) State-of-the-art CT colonography: Update on technique and performance. Current Colorectal Cancer Reports 3:1, 49-54
CrossRef70
A. Pezzoli, V. Matarese, M. Rubini, M. Simoni, G.C. Caravelli, R. Stockbrugger, V. Cifalà, S. Boccia, C. Feo, L. Simone, L. Trevisani, A. Liboni, S. Gullini. (2007) Colorectal cancer screening: Results of a 5-year program in asymptomatic subjects at increased risk. Digestive and Liver Disease 39:1, 33-39
CrossRef71
Marc J. Gollub, Lawrence H. Schwartz, Tim Akhurst. (2007) Update on Colorectal Cancer Imaging. Radiologic Clinics of North America 45:1, 85-118
CrossRef72
George Triadafilopoulos, H. David Watts, Jack Higgins, Jacques Van Dam. (2007) A novel retrograde-viewing auxiliary imaging device (Third Eye Retroscope) improves the detection of simulated polyps in anatomic models of the colon. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 65:1, 139-144
CrossRef73
David Kastenberg, Charles Barish, Harry Burack, Douglas Dean Dalke, Steven Duckor, William Putnam, Gregg Valenzuela. (2007) Tolerability and Patient Acceptance of Sodium Phosphate Tablets Compared With 4-L PEG Solution in Colon Cleansing. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 41:1, 54-61
CrossRef74
Douglas K. Rex. (2006) Maximizing Detection of Adenomas and Cancers During Colonoscopy. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 101:12, 2866-2877
CrossRef75
Suzanne M. Frentz, Ronald M. Summers. (2006) Current Status of CT Colonography. Academic Radiology 13:12, 1517-1531
CrossRef76
Christoph Wald, Christopher D. Scheirey, Tai M. Tran, Nazli Erbay. (2006) An Update on Imaging of Colorectal Cancer. Surgical Clinics of North America 86:4, 819-847
CrossRef77
Navkiran Shokar, Carol Carlson, Gurjeet Shokar. (2006) Physician and Patient Influences on the Rate of Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Primary Care Clinic. Journal of Cancer Education 21:2, 84-88
CrossRef78
Steve R. Martinez, Shawn E. Young, Rebecca E. Hoedema, Leland J. Foshag, Anton J. Bilchik. (2006) Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Current Standards and Future Trends. Annals of Surgical Oncology 13:6, 768-775
CrossRef79
Douglas K. Rex, Charles J. Kahi, Bernard Levin, Robert A. Smith, John H. Bond, Durado Brooks, Randall W. Burt, Tim Byers, Robert H. Fletcher, Neil Hyman, David Johnson, Lynne Kirk, David A. Lieberman, Theodore R. Levin, Michael J. O’Brien, Clifford Simmang, Alan G. Thorson, Sidney J. Winawer. (2006) Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance After Cancer Resection: A Consensus Update by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 130:6, 1865-1871
CrossRef80
Ellen J. Teng, Lois C. Friedman, Charles E. Green. (2006) Determinants of colorectal cancer screening behavior among Chinese Americans. Psycho-Oncology 15:5, 374-381
CrossRef81
L. PETRUZZIELLO, F. IACOPINI, M. BULAJIC, S. SHAH, G. COSTAMAGNA. (2006) Review article: uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 23:10, 1379-1391
CrossRef82
Kenneth E. Hung, Daniel C. Chung. (2006) Colorectal Cancer Screening: Today and Tomorrow. Southern Medical Journal 99:3, 240-246
CrossRef83
John H. Bond. (2006) The Place of Fecal Occult Blood Test in Colorectal Cancer Screening in 2006: The U.S. Perspective. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 101:2, 219-221
CrossRef84
Alan O'Hare, Helen Fenlon. (2006) Virtual colonoscopy in the detection of colonic polyps and neoplasms. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology 20:1, 79-92
CrossRef85
F. B. NICHOLSON, J. L. BARRO, W. ATKIN, R. LILFORD, J. PATNICK, C. B. WILLIAMS, M. PIGNONE, R. STEELE, M. A. KAMM. (2005) Review article: population screening for colorectal cancer. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 22:11-12, 1069-1077
CrossRef86
David Burling, Stuart A. Taylor, Steve Halligan. (2005) Virtual Colonoscopy: Current Status and Future Directions. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 15:4, 773-795
CrossRef87
Uri Ladabaum, Kenneth Song. (2005) Projected National Impact of Colorectal Cancer Screening on Clinical and Economic Outcomes and Health Services Demand. Gastroenterology 129:4, 1151-1162
CrossRef88
Ismail Jatoi, William F. Anderson. (2005) Cancer Screening. Current Problems in Surgery 42:9, 620-682
CrossRef89
S PURKAYASTHA, P TEKKIS, T ATHANASIOU, O AZIZ, R NEGUS, W GEDROYC, A DARZI. (2005) Magnetic resonance colonography versus colonoscopy as a diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Clinical Radiology 60:9, 980-989
CrossRef90
Charles J. Kahi, Douglas K. Rex. (2005) Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 15:3, 533-547
CrossRef91
Edmund J. Bini, Roshini C. Rajapaksa, Elizabeth H. Weinshel. (2005) Positive Predictive Value of Fecal Occult Blood Testing in Persons Taking Warfarin. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 100:7, 1586-1592
CrossRef92
Don C. Rockey. (2005) Colon Imaging: Computed Tomographic Colonography. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 3:7, S37-S41
CrossRef93
David F. Ransohoff. (2005) Colon Cancer Screening in 2005: Status and Challenges. Gastroenterology 128:6, 1685-1695
CrossRef94
Shinobu Yamada, Masakazu Yashiro, Kiyoshi Maeda, Yukio Nishiguchi, Kosei Hirakawa. (2005) A novel high-specificity approach for colorectal neoplasia: Detection of K-ras2 oncogene mutation in normal mucosa. International Journal of Cancer 113:6, 1015-1021
CrossRef95
(2005) Practice Parameters for the Management of Rectal Cancer (Revised). Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 48:3, 411-423
CrossRef96
Matthew Q. Bromer, David S. Weinberg. (2005) Screening for colorectal cancer—now and the near future. Seminars in Oncology 32:1, 3-10
CrossRef97
Sapna Syngal, Prathap Bandipalliam, C. Richard Boland. (2005) Surveillance of patients at high risk for colorectal cancer. Medical Clinics of North America 89:1, 61-84
CrossRef98
Elizabeth Allen, Christina Nicolaidis, Mark Helfand. (2005) The Evaluation of Rectal Bleeding in Adults. A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Four Diagnostic Strategies. Journal of General Internal Medicine 20:1, 81-90
CrossRef99
Mitchell S. Cappell. (2005) The pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and diagnosis of colon cancer and adenomatous polyps. Medical Clinics of North America 89:1, 1-42
CrossRef100
Shane E. Hendon, Jack A. DiPalma. (2005) U.S. practices for colon cancer screening. The Keio Journal of Medicine 54:4, 179-183
CrossRef101
Zvi Lefkovitz, Robert Shapiro, Stephen Koch, Mitchell S. Cappell. (2005) The emerging role of virtual colonoscopy. Medical Clinics of North America 89:1, 111-138
CrossRef102
DC Rockey, E Paulson, D Niedzwiecki, W Davis, HB Bosworth, L Sanders, J Yee, J Henderson, P Hatten, S Burdick, A Sanyal, DT Rubin, M Sterling, G Akerkar, MS Bhutani, K Binmoeller, J Garvie, EJ Bini, K McQuaid, WL Foster, WM Thompson, A Dachman, R Halvorsen. (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. The Lancet 365:9456, 305-311
CrossRef103
Aza Abdulla, Adrian Thomas, Anthony Jenkins. (2004) Imaging the large bowel in the elderly. Geriatrics and Gerontology International 4:4, 193-205
CrossRef104
Srilekha Cherian, Pradip Singh. (2004) Is Routine Ileoscopy Useful? An Observational Study of Procedure Times, Diagnostic Yield, and Learning Curve. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 99:12, 2324-2329
CrossRef105
Anna C. Battat, Robert V. Rouse, Lynne Dempsey, Bassem Y. Safadi, Sherry M. Wren. (2004) Institutional Commitment to Rectal Cancer Screening Results in Earlier-Stage Cancers on Diagnosis. Annals of Surgical Oncology 11:11, 970-976
CrossRef106
Beth Y. Karlan. (2004) The Colon Is a Pelvic Organ Too. Obstetrics & Gynecology 104:5, Part 1, 907-909
CrossRef107
Bettina Saar, Ambros Beer, Thomas Rösch, Ernst J. Rummeny. (2004) Magnetic resonance colonography: A promising new technique. Current Gastroenterology Reports 6:5, 389-394
CrossRef108
Jacques van Dam, Peter Cotton, C. Daniel Johnson, Beth G. McFarland, Benoit C. Pineau, Dawn Provenzale, David Ransohoff, Douglas Rex, Don Rockey, F. Taylor Wootton. (2004) AGA future trends report: CT colonography. Gastroenterology 127:3, 970-984
CrossRef109
M. Vella, S. MacKenzie, I.E. Young, R. G. Molloy, P. J. O’Dwyer. (2004) Impact of video colonoscopy on stage and outcome of patients with symptomatic colorectal cancer. Surgical Endoscopy 18:8, 1268-1271
CrossRef110
David Burling, Stuart Taylor, Steve Halligan. (2004) Computerized tomography colonography. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 4:4, 615-625
CrossRef111
S HALLIGAN. (2004) Re: Observer variation in the detection of colorectal neoplasia on double-contrast barium enema: implications for colorectal cancer screening and training. Clinical Radiology 59:8, 762-763
CrossRef112
Judy Yee. (2004) Screening CT colonography. Radiologic Clinics of North America 42:4, 757-766
CrossRef113
C BARTRAM. (2004) Observer variation in the detection of colorectal neoplasia on double-contrast barium enema: implications for colorectal cancer screening and training. Clinical Radiology 59:7, 641-642
CrossRef114
Kenneth Song, A.Mark Fendrick, Uri Ladabaum. (2004) Fecal DNA testing compared with conventional colorectal cancer screening methods: a decision analysis. Gastroenterology 126:5, 1270-1279
CrossRef115
Ernest T. Hawk, Asad Umar, Jaye L. Viner. (2004) Colorectal cancer chemoprevention—an overview of the science1 1This article was prepared in our capacity as employees of the U.S. Federal Government.. Gastroenterology 126:5, 1423-1447
CrossRef116
Eric J Eschinger, Jeffrey J Littman, Kimberly Meyer, Leo C Katz, Perry J Milman, David M Kastenberg. (2004) Safety of Sodium Phosphate Tablets in Patients Receiving Propofol-based Sedation for Colonoscopy. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 38:5, 425-428
CrossRef117
Ferdinand Serracino-Inglott, Henry D.E Atkinson, Paul Jha, Ian Parker, David N Anderson. (2004) Early experiences with computed axial tomography colonography. The American Journal of Surgery 187:4, 511-514
CrossRef118
Matthew Harrison, Navjot Singh, Douglas K. Rex. (2004) Impact of Proximal Colon Retroflexion on Adenoma Miss Rates. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 99:3, 519-522
CrossRef119
D. A. Lieberman, W. Atkin. (2004) Balancing the ideal versus the practical-considerations of colorectal cancer prevention and screening. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 19:s1, 71-76
CrossRef120
E. D. J. Courtney, D. M. Melville, R. J. Leicester. (2004) Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 19:1, 1-24
CrossRef121
Don C. Rockey. 2004. Occult Gastrointestinal Bleeding. , 5-15.
CrossRef122
Jane Allaire, William O. Thompson, Brooks D. Cash, Deborah J.B. Galt. (2004) A Quality Improvement Project Comparing Two Regimens of Medication for Colonoscopy Preparation. Gastroenterology Nursing 27:1, 3-8
CrossRef123
Angel Ferrández, James A DiSario. (2003) Colorectal cancer: screening and surveillance for high-risk individuals. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 3:6, 851-862
CrossRef124
Gary L. Ellison, Joan L. Warren, Kevin B. Knopf, Martin L. Brown. (2003) Racial Differences in the Receipt of Bowel Surveillance Following Potentially Curative Colorectal Cancer Surgery. Health Services Research 38:6p2, 1885-1904
CrossRef125
Teresa M Gallo, Giovanni Galatola, Mario Fracchia, Giuseppina Defazio, Francesca De Bei, Angelo Pera, Daniele Regge. (2003) Computed tomography colonography in routine clinical practice. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 15:12, 1323-1331
CrossRef126
Nancy K Janz, Patricia A Wren, David Schottenfeld, Kenneth E Guire. (2003) Colorectal cancer screening attitudes and behavior: a population-based study. Preventive Medicine 37:6, 627-634
CrossRef127
S Halligan. (2003) Observer Variation in the Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia on Double-contrast Barium Enema: Implications for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Training. Clinical Radiology 58:12, 948-954
CrossRef128
S Taylor. (2003) Use of Multidetector-row CT Colonography for Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia in Patients Referred via the Department of Health “2-Week-Wait” Initiative. Clinical Radiology 58:11, 855-861
CrossRef129
R. E. van Gelder, J. Florie, J. Stoker. (2003) CT Colonography: Practical Aspects and Present Status. Imaging Decisions MRI 7:3, 4-9
CrossRef130
C.Daniel Johnson, Alicia Y. Toledano, Benjamin A. Herman, Abraham H. Dachman, Elizabeth G. Mcfarland, Matthew A. Barish, James A. Brink, Randy D. Ernst, Joel G. Fletcher, Robert A. Halvorsen, Amy K. Hara, Kenneth D. Hopper, Robert E. Koehler, David S.K. Lu, Michael Macari, Robert L. Maccarty, Frank H. Miller, Martina Morrin, Erik K. Paulson, Judy Yee, Michael Zalis. (2003) Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting1 1Vital Images Inc. has supported research at UCLA (to D. S. K. L., J. A. B., and E. G. M.). Monex provided support (to M. M.). GE Medical Systems provided software license and research support (to C. D. J., J. A. B., and A. H. D.). Voxar, Inc. produces products that compete with products listed in this paper (to M. A. B.).The study design was approved by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. Computerized tomographic colonography examinations for American College of Radiology Imaging Network Protocol A6656 were submitted by E. G. McFarland, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis, Missouri; M. Zalis, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; C. D. Johnson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; M. Macari, New York University, New York, New York; D. Lu, University of California, Los Angeles, California; A. H. Dachman, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; M. Morrin, Beth Israel/Deaconess Hospitals, Boston, Massachusetts; and J. Yee, Veterans Administration Hospital, San Francisco, California. Workstations for performing computerized tomographic colonography interpretations were loaned to the American College of Radiology (ACR) by General Electric, Vital Images, and the Mayo Clinic. Each provided technical support for installation at the ACR. Computerized tomographic colonography examinations were removed and workstations returned after the study interpretations were completed.. Gastroenterology 125:3, 688-695
CrossRef131
S. A. Taylor, S. Halligan, M. Vance, A. Windsor, W. Atkin, C. I. Bartram. (2003) Use of multidetector-row computed tomographic colonography before flexible sigmoidoscopy in the investigation of rectal bleeding. British Journal of Surgery 90:9, 1163-1164
CrossRef132
C.Daniel Johnson, William S Harmsen, Lynn A Wilson, Robert L Maccarty, Timothy J Welch, Duane M Ilstrup, David A Ahlquist. (2003) Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 125:2, 311-319
CrossRef133
Douglas K Rex. (2003) Is virtual colonoscopy ready for widespread application?. Gastroenterology 125:2, 608-610
CrossRef134
M.G. Myriam Hunink, G. Scott Gazelle. (2003) CT screening: a trade-off of risks, benefits, and costs. Journal of Clinical Investigation 111:11, 1612-1619
CrossRef135
Linda Rabeneck, Jessica A. Davila, Hashem B. El-Serag. (2003) Is there a true "shift" to the right colon in the incidence of colorectal cancer?. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 98:6, 1400-1409
CrossRef136
David E Loren, James Lewis, Michael L Kochman. (2003) Colon cancer: detection and prevention. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America 17:2, 553-574
CrossRef137
R.M.S Mitchell, M.F Byrne, J Baillie. (2003) Colonoscopy or barium enema for population colorectal cancer screening?. Digestive and Liver Disease 35:4, 207-211
CrossRef138
Abraham H Dachman, Hiro Yoshida. (2003) Virtual colonoscopy: past, present,and future. Radiologic Clinics of North America 41:2, 377-393
CrossRef139
Judy Yee, Darice Liu, Patricia Lew. (2003) Colorectal Cancer Screening in Women: The Role of CT Colonography. Journal of Women's Imaging 5:1, 25-39
CrossRef140
Bettina Saar, Thomas Rösch, Ernst J. Rummeny. (2002) Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Challenge for Magnetic Resonance Colonography. Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging 13:6, 427-434
CrossRef141
Angel Ferrández, James A. DiSario. (2002) Hereditary colorectal cancer: Screening and management. Current Treatment Options in Oncology 3:6, 459-474
CrossRef142
David F Ransohoff. (2002) Screening colonoscopy in balance. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America 31:4, 1031-1044
CrossRef143
Bernard Levin, Robert A. Smith, Gabriel E. Feldman, Graham A. Colditz, Robert H. Fletcher, Marion Nadel, David A. Rothenberger, Paul S. Schroy, Sally W. Vernon, Richard Wender, . (2002) Promoting early detection tests for colorectal carcinoma and adenomatous polyps. Cancer 95:8, 1618-1628
CrossRef144
P. B. F. Mensink, J. J. Kolkman, J. van Baarlen, J. H. Kleibeuker. (2002) Change in Anatomic Distribution and Incidence of Colorectal Carcinoma Over a Period of 15 Years. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 45:10, 1393-1396
CrossRef145
Brad Trowbridge, Randall W. Burt. (2002) Colorectal cancer screening. Surgical Clinics of North America 82:5, 943-957
CrossRef146
Vege Santhi Swaroop, Mark V. Larson. (2002) Colonoscopy as a Screening Test for Colorectal Cancer in Average-Risk Individuals. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 77:9, 951-956
CrossRef147
V. S. Swaroop, M. V. Larson. (2002) Colonoscopy as a Screening Test for Colorectal Cancer in Average-Risk Individuals. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 77:9, 951-956
CrossRef148
Kathryn A Peterson, James A DiSario. (2002) Secondary prevention: screening and surveillance of persons at average and high risk for colorectal cancer. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America 16:4, 841-865
CrossRef149
Agnès Vitry, E. Corbillon, Anne-Isabelle Poullié. (2002) Place de la coloscople virtuelle dans le dépistage du cancer colorectal. Acta Endoscopica 32:4, 665-681
CrossRef150
(2002) Fecal DNA Tests for Colorectal Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 346:24, 1912-1913
Full Text151
David E Loren, James Lewis, Michael L Kochman. (2002) Colon cancer: detection and prevention. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America 31:2, 565-586
CrossRef152
Min Chung-Park. (2002) A Look at Colorectal Cancer Screening in Women. The Nurse Practitioner 27:6, 43-44
CrossRef153
Patrick M. Lynch. (2002) Screening colonoscopy for family history of colorectal cancer: A growing consensus. Annals of Surgical Oncology 9:5, 425-427
CrossRef154
David S. Alberts. (2002) Reducing the Risk of Colorectal Cancer by Intervening in the Process of Carcinogenesis. The Cancer Journal 8:3, 208-221
CrossRef155
Ransohoff, David F., Sandler, Robert S., . (2002) Screening for Colorectal Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 346:1, 40-44
Full Text156
Ann Morris DiPalma, Jack A. DiPalma. (2002) Women’s Colonic Digestive Health. Gastroenterology Nursing 25:1, 3-8
CrossRef157
John H. Bond. (2002) Colorectal cancer screening: the potential role of virtual colonoscopy. Journal of Gastroenterology 37:S13, 92-96
CrossRef158
Daniel J.A. Connolly, Zoë C. Traill, Helen S. Reid, Susan J. Copley, Daniel J. Nolan. (2002) The Double Contrast Barium Enema: A Retrospective Single Centre Audit of the Detection of Colorectal Carcinomas. Clinical Radiology 57:1, 29-32
CrossRef159
Paul C. Schroy, Alan C. Geller, Martha Crosier Wood, Melissa Page, Lisa Sutherland, Lauren J. Holm, Tim Heeren. (2001) Utilization of Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests: A 1997 Survey of Massachusetts Internists. Preventive Medicine 33:5, 381-391
CrossRef160
Richard M. Mendelson. (2001) Barium enema: to BE or not to BE: Is that the question?. ANZ Journal of Surgery 71:11, 627-628
CrossRef161
Sharyn McDonald, Patrick Lyall, Lincoln Israel, Richard Coates, Frank Frizelle. (2001) Why barium enemas fail to identify colorectal cancers. ANZ Journal of Surgery 71:11, 631-633
CrossRef162
I DEZWART, G GRIFFIOEN, M SHAW, C LAMERS, A DEROOS. (2001) Barium Enema and Endoscopy for the Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia: Sensitivity, Specificity, Complications and its Determinants. Clinical Radiology 56:5, 401-409
CrossRef163
Glenn M. Eisen, John F. Johanson. (2001) EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACH TO SCREENING AND SURVEILLANCE FOR COLORECTAL CANCER. Evidence-Based Gastroenterology 2:1, 44-49
CrossRef164
(2000) Comparison of Colonoscopy and Double-Contrast Barium Enema. New England Journal of Medicine 343:23, 1728-1730
Full Text165
Woolf, Steven H., . (2000) The Best Screening Test for Colorectal Cancer — A Personal Choice. New England Journal of Medicine 343:22, 1641-1643
Full Text166
Walter E. Smalley, Glenn M. Eisen. (2000) Colorectal cancer screening 2000: The role of colonoscopy in average-risk individuals. Current Gastroenterology Reports 2:5, 406-412
CrossRef167
Podolsky, Daniel K., . (2000) Going the Distance — The Case for True Colorectal-Cancer Screening. New England Journal of Medicine 343:3, 207-208
Full Text168
Fletcher, Robert H., . (2000) The End of Barium Enemas?. New England Journal of Medicine 342:24, 1823-1824
Full Text
- Letters
