Original Article
CT Colonography versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Advanced Neoplasia
N Engl J Med 2007; 357:1403-1412October 4, 2007
- Abstract
Background
Advanced neoplasia represents the primary target for colorectal-cancer screening and prevention. We compared the diagnostic yield from parallel computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) screening programs.
Methods
We compared primary CTC screening in 3120 consecutive adults (mean [±SD] age, 57.0±7.2 years) with primary OC screening in 3163 consecutive adults (mean age, 58.1±7.8 years). The main outcome measures included the detection of advanced neoplasia (advanced adenomas and carcinomas) and the total number of harvested polyps. Referral for polypectomy during OC was offered for all CTC-detected polyps of at least 6 mm in size. Patients with one or two small polyps (6 to 9 mm) also were offered the option of CTC surveillance. During primary OC, nearly all detected polyps were removed, regardless of size, according to established practice guidelines.
Results
During CTC and OC screening, 123 and 121 advanced neoplasms were found, including 14 and 4 invasive cancers, respectively. The referral rate for OC in the primary CTC screening group was 7.9% (246 of 3120 patients). Advanced neoplasia was confirmed in 100 of the 3120 patients in the CTC group (3.2%) and in 107 of the 3163 patients in the OC group (3.4%), not including 158 patients with 193 unresected CTC-detected polyps of 6 to 9 mm who were undergoing surveillance. The total numbers of polyps removed in the CTC and OC groups were 561 and 2434, respectively. There were seven colonic perforations in the OC group and none in the CTC group.
Conclusions
Primary CTC and OC screening strategies resulted in similar detection rates for advanced neoplasia, although the numbers of polypectomies and complications were considerably smaller in the CTC group. These findings support the use of CTC as a primary screening test before therapeutic OC.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Enrollment and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing CTC.Figure 2
CTC in a Man at Average Risk for Colorectal Cancer.Article Activity
- Article
Advanced neoplasia of the large intestine consists of both adenocarcinomas and a subgroup of benign neoplasms referred to as advanced adenomas. The advanced adenoma represents the optimal target lesion for strategies to prevent colorectal cancer. This benign lesion is considered to be associated with a relatively high risk of progression to cancer.1 The advanced adenoma is specifically defined as an adenoma that meets one or more of the following criteria: a size of at least 10 mm, the presence of a substantial villous component, and the presence of high-grade dysplasia.1,2 Removal of detected advanced adenomas effectively disrupts the potential pathway to the development of cancer that is believed to be responsible for the majority of colorectal carcinomas.2-4
Most subcentimeter polyps are not adenomatous, and only a small fraction of all adenomas are advanced, suggesting a need for more selective alternatives to the practice of universal polypectomy.3,5,6 The purpose of this study was to compare computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) when applied to the same general screening population. Important outcome measures included detection rates for advanced adenomas and adenocarcinomas for various categories of polyp size and overall polypectomy rates. These observations provided an assessment of CTC as a selective filter for therapeutic OC in the detection of advanced neoplasia.
Methods
Study Group
Our study, which complied with the guidelines of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Wisconsin Medical School. The requirement for informed consent was waived. The clinical databases from parallel CTC and OC colorectal screening programs at a single institution were analyzed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of each approach. We compared results from 3120 consecutive patients enrolled in the CTC screening program during a 25-month period with those from 3163 consecutive patients seen at OC screening during a 17-month period (with partially overlapping time periods). The two programs drew patients from the same general screening population and geographic region.
The patients in each program were referred by the same groups of primary care providers for the indication of colorectal-cancer screening. Exclusion criteria included polyp surveillance or a history of a bowel disorder, such as inflammatory bowel disease, polyposis syndromes, and the hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. The characteristics of the two groups are shown in Table 1Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Patients.. The majority of patients were asymptomatic and at average risk for colorectal cancer.Study Design
We identified all pathologically proven neoplasms that were detected by each screening method from the pool of resected polyps. From this group, the advanced neoplasms were extracted. Large polyps were defined as measuring at least 10 mm in size, small polyps as measuring 6 to 9 mm, and diminutive lesions as measuring 5 mm or less. Prospective assignment of polyp characteristics at both CTC and OC screening included size, morphologic characteristics, and anatomical location. The morphologic characteristics of the polyps were classified as sessile, pedunculated, or flat; frankly invasive masses were considered as a separate category. The location of the polyp was originally assigned according to anatomical segment but, for the purpose of this study, was condensed into proximal and distal locations, relative to the splenic flexure. Adenomas were classified histologically as tubular, tubulovillous (25 to 75% villous component), villous, or serrated subtypes. Invasive carcinoma was defined as malignant spread beyond the muscularis mucosa.
We compared the prevalence of high-grade dysplasia, invasive adenocarcinoma, and overall advanced neoplasia in each study group. The rates of positive results for both screening tests were calculated at various thresholds of polyp size. A test was considered to be positive at a given size threshold when one or more polyps of that size or greater were detected.
CTC Protocol
Referral by a physician was required for primary CTC screening. Bowel preparation for CTC involved both a cathartic agent and oral contrast tagging agents.7 A single 45-ml dose of sodium phosphate was used for catharsis in most patients8; magnesium citrate or, rarely, polyethylene glycol was substituted in a minority of patients with renal or cardiac conditions. Single doses of 2% barium (250 ml) and diatrizoate (60 ml) were given to tag residual stool and fluid, respectively. No sedating or spasmolytic agents were given. Colonic distention was achieved with automated low-pressure delivery of carbon dioxide (PROTOCO2L, E-Z-EM). A multidetector 8-channel or 16-channel computed tomographic (CT) scanner was used (LightSpeed Series, General Electric Medical Systems). The CT technique involved the use of 1.25-mm collimation and scanner settings of 120 kVp and 25 to 75 mAs with the patient in both supine and prone positions. The imaging data were reviewed on a dedicated three-dimensional CTC workstation (V3D Colon, Viatronix).
The CTC examinations were immediately interpreted by one of five gastrointestinal radiologists who were experienced in CTC. Polyp size was determined on the optimal CTC view with the use of electronic calipers.9 Colonic and extracolonic findings on CT were classified according to designations of CTC Reporting and Data System (C-RADS).10 For all polyps of at least 6 mm, the patient was offered same-day therapeutic OC, unless the procedure was contraindicated. Patients with only one or two polyps of 6 to 9 mm were given the option of CTC surveillance.10 Potential diminutive lesions (≤5 mm) were not reported.5,11 After CTC, patients resumed their regular activities but remained in a fasting state to allow for same-day OC, if necessary. Final CTC results were relayed to patients within 2 hours after the procedure.
OC Protocol
Primary OC screening operates as an open-access system. Bowel preparation was usually accomplished with polyethylene glycol (4 liters), although some patients instead received two 45-ml doses of sodium phosphate. Moderate sedation was accomplished with intravenous midazolam and fentanyl. The OC examinations were performed with the use of standard colonoscopes (EC-3872LK and EC-3470LK, Pentax) by 1 of 10 experienced gastroenterologists. OC after a positive CTC study was performed in a fashion similar to that of primary OC, with the exception that the physician had knowledge of CTC polyp findings before performing the OC study.
The colonoscope was advanced to the cecum; examination for polyps was performed on both insertion and withdrawal of the scope. Polyps that were identified during OC were removed with standard techniques. Polyp size was based on in vivo OC estimation before polypectomy. Detected polyps, including diminutive lesions, were generally removed at OC evaluation, regardless of whether the study was performed as a primary screening test or after CTC.
Statistical Analysis
Primary comparisons were made between the patients enrolled in the CTC screening program and those in the OC screening program. The two groups were compared with the use of the Student's t-test for independent samples for continuous outcomes and Pearson's chi-square test for categorical outcomes. A two-sided P value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.
Results
The diagnostic yields from primary CTC and primary OC screening are summarized in Table 2Table 2
Diagnostic Yield of Primary CTC and Primary OC Screening.. The total number of advanced neoplasms and the prevalence in patients were similar for the two screening approaches. No statistical difference between the groups was seen in the number of large or small advanced adenomas that were removed. However, the number of polypectomies performed to achieve these similar outcomes differed significantly between the two groups, with more than four times as many polyps removed in the OC group as in the CTC group.Overall, 246 of 3120 patients in the CTC group (7.9%) were referred for therapeutic OC (Figure 1Figure 1
Enrollment and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing CTC.). Of note, the numbers of polyps in the primary CTC group do not reflect the 193 unresected polyps of 6 to 9 mm in 158 patients undergoing continuing surveillance. On the basis of previous experience with CTC screening, approximately 60% of polyps of 6 to 9 mm detected by CTC would be expected to be adenomatous,12 and approximately 3% of CTC-detected adenomas of 6 to 9 mm contain advanced histologic findings.6 Therefore, we estimated that CTC surveillance would yield three to four advanced adenomas (193×0.6×0.03), resulting in a yield of advanced neoplasias among small lesions that was very similar to the yield associated with OC.Limited follow-up data regarding these polyps are available. The majority of these patients are awaiting interval CTC examination. Of the patients with 1 or 2 polyps of 6 to 9 mm who are undergoing continuing surveillance, 54 have returned for follow-up CTC with findings of 70 small polyps. In this group, 67 polyps (96%) have remained stable or decreased in size at follow-up. Three polyps grew at least 1 mm but did not cross the 10-mm threshold; these polyps were all removed. Histologic examination revealed tubular adenomas without high-grade dysplasia for all three polyps.
The rates of positive test results for the two screening strategies are shown in Table 3Table 3
Rates of Positive Screening Results, According to Threshold of Polyp Size.. The rates for CTC and OC were similar at the 10-mm and 6-mm thresholds, but there was a disparity in overall positivity rates, reflecting the different handling of diminutive lesions.Characteristics of advanced neoplasia, including size, histologic and morphologic characteristics, and anatomical location, are summarized in Table 4Table 4
Characteristics of Advanced Neoplasms.. The great majority of lesions could be classified as advanced on the basis of size alone, including 117 of 123 (95.1%) in the primary CTC group and 107 of 121 (88.4%) in the primary OC group. A total of 15 of the 6283 patients in the combined groups (0.2%) had subcentimeter advanced neoplasias. As noted above, several additional small advanced adenomas may be among the unresected polyps in the CTC surveillance group. Of the 20 subcentimeter advanced adenomas in these 15 patients, 16 of 20 (80%) had tubulovillous histologic characteristics without high-grade dysplasia; four lesions in three patients contained high-grade dysplasia. All proven adenocarcinomas were large, with a mean (±SD) size of 34.9±14.6 mm. Of 18 invasive cancers, 15 were more than 2 cm in size, and 3 were 1 to 2 cm.Tubular and tubulovillous histologic characteristics were common among the advanced adenomas from both groups, whereas villous and serrated histologic characteristics were relatively rare (Table 4). High-grade dysplasia without carcinoma was also quite rare and was seen in only 14 of 6283 patients (0.2%). In the CTC group, 12 of 3120 patients (0.4%) had invasive adenocarcinoma, as compared with 4 of 3163 (0.1%) in the OC group. Most advanced adenomas in both groups were characterized as either sessile or pedunculated (Figure 2Figure 2
CTC in a Man at Average Risk for Colorectal Cancer.), with few flat lesions. Advanced adenomas were distributed throughout the large intestine.Extracolonic findings detected on CTC and classified according to C-RADS criteria10 are shown in Table 5Table 5
Extracolonic Findings in the CTC Group.. Such classification allows for uniform reporting and indicates which imaging findings may require further evaluation. Overall, eight extracolonic cancers were seen in the CTC cohort, accounting for a prevalence of 0.3%.Serious adverse events during primary OC screening included colonic perforation in seven patients (0.2%); in four of the patients, surgical repair was required. During primary CTC screening, there were no perforations or other serious complications related to either the CTC examination or subsequent therapeutic OC.
Discussion
Colorectal cancer is a major cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States, accounting for approximately 55,000 deaths per year.13 However, because this cancer has an identifiable precursor lesion, there is a genuine opportunity for prevention rather than cancer detection alone.3,4 In particular, targeted detection and removal of advanced adenomas may be the most effective approach to cancer prevention.1 OC is an effective screening tool for the detection and removal of advanced colorectal neoplasia and is widely regarded as part of the preferred screening strategy.4,14,15 Our results suggest that primary CTC with selective OC also deserves consideration as a preferred screening strategy because it appears to achieve the same goals of detection and prevention but with the use of substantially fewer resources in terms of OC procedures and polypectomies. Thus, CTC may provide a more targeted screening approach for detection of advanced neoplasia.
In our study, the coexistence of parallel CTC and OC screening programs at a single institution allowed for substantive comparison of diagnostic yields and the use of resources. We observed similar detection rates for advanced adenomas during both CTC and OC screenings. The diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia was similar in the two groups, despite the fact that small lesions (≤5 mm) were not reported during CTC. In addition, a subgroup of patients with unresected polyps of 6 to 9 mm were undergoing CTC surveillance, and the frequency of a family history of colorectal cancer was higher in the OC screening cohort. The different handling of diminutive lesions largely accounts for the discrepancies in the overall rates of positive test results (12.9% in the CTC group vs. 37.6% in the OC group) and in the numbers of polypectomies (561 vs. 2434).
Overall, 2006 polypectomies were performed to remove diminutive polyps, which yielded four advanced lesions (0.2%). Such observations reinforce the scarcity of diminutive and small advanced neoplastic lesions and the potential benefits of filtering strategies during CTC. In fact, Markov modeling of large cohorts has shown that the strategy of not reporting diminutive polyps detected during CTC screening is a cost-effective approach that can substantially reduce the rate of polypectomy and complications without any sacrifice with respect to cancer prevention.16
Beyond these differences, however, there were also some striking similarities between the two screening strategies. For example, the rates of positive test results at the thresholds of 6 mm and 10 mm were similar, and the characteristics of the advanced adenomas were also quite similar.
Polyps of at least 10 mm appear to represent a very useful surrogate for advanced adenomas, accounting for the great majority of all advanced lesions in our study. Large polyp size has already been singled out by some observers as the most important criterion for advanced neoplasia.1 Only 20 subcentimeter polyps in our study were histologically advanced, which corresponded to an overall prevalence of 0.2% (15 of 6283 patients). Only four advanced adenomas were identified in the diminutive category. Furthermore, only 3 patients had four subcentimeter polyps with high-grade dysplasia (0.05%), and there were no subcentimeter cancers in more than 6000 patients. These observations suggest that a 10-mm threshold for polypectomy at asymptomatic screening would probably capture the vast majority of clinically relevant lesions.
The overall prevalence of advanced neoplasia in this healthy screening cohort of 6283 adults was 3.3%, which is somewhat lower than the prevalence of 4 to 6% reported in several other studies5,15,17-19 and substantially lower than the prevalence of 10.5% in a population of male veterans.14 These differences are probably multifactorial, but variations in age, sex, ethnic background, family history, and frequency of symptoms may all play a role. A recent colonoscopy study showed that the prevalence of advanced neoplasia was less than 3% in certain low-risk cohorts.20 In our study, the frequency of advanced histologic findings among subcentimeter lesions, particularly high-grade dysplasia and invasive carcinoma, was also generally lower than previously reported.2,21-23 However, the inclusion of 10-mm lesions in the category of small polyps in some previous studies substantially increased the reported prevalence.22,23 Furthermore, a recent colonoscopy series evaluating a large screening population reported low cancer rates among resected adenomas measuring 6 to 9 mm (0.07%) and 1 to 2 cm (2.4%).24 In our study, the exclusion of a subgroup of patients who had small, unresected polyps and were undergoing CTC surveillance probably had only a small effect on the prevalence of advanced adenomas.
The clinical management of small polyps of 6 to 9 mm that are detected during CTC is controversial. One approach is to offer OC for polypectomy to all patients with CTC-detected polyps of at least 6 mm.25 However, an option of short-term CTC surveillance for patients with one or two small CTC-detected polyps has also been suggested.10 Short-term CTC surveillance for small polyps allows for more efficient detection and removal of the uncommon advanced neoplasms because only the enlarging lesions are removed. As discussed previously, potential benefits include the decreased use of resources, procedural risks, and cost. Potential drawbacks mainly involve the possibility of following a polyp that harbors a focus of cancer or transforms to cancer during the surveillance period, resulting in a lost opportunity for cancer prevention. The presumed low risk for this subgroup of polyps is echoed by the low prevalence of subcentimeter lesions harboring high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma in the population we studied. In addition, the limited natural-history data from several older longitudinal studies that monitored lesions with the use of barium enema and endoscopic examination support the practice of short-term CTC follow-up.26-29 Ultimately, more investigation will be needed to determine which strategy is more beneficial during CTC. Such a surveillance strategy for small polyps that are detected during primary OC would clearly be less appealing because the scope is already in place and the only incremental costs and risks that are incurred are related to the polypectomy itself.
Adverse events were uncommon during OC screening, and no serious complications were reported in the CTC group. The perforation rate of 0.2% (7 of 3163 patients) in the OC group was within the expected range reported in previous colonoscopy series.30,31 The absence of perforations in the CTC screening group was largely due to both the minimally invasive nature of CTC32 and the decreased numbers of OC studies and polypectomies, as compared with the primary OC group. Concern has been raised regarding the potential risks associated with radiation exposure from CTC. Some observers contend that the risk is too small to quantify.33 Proponents of the linear, no-threshold model argue that a small risk exists, but even members of this group agree that the benefits of screening for colorectal cancer appear to outweigh these small theoretical risks.34
A major limitation of our study was the lack of randomization. Thus, a potential exists for selection bias affecting the composition of the study population for each program, leading to different prevalences of advanced adenomas. Although most patients in both cohorts were being screened for the first time, it is possible that some of them had undergone previous colorectal screening elsewhere. However, the groups were similar in several important respects, including a relatively young age and a predominance of women. Age and sex have been shown to be strong predictive factors for the prevalence of adenomas and high-grade dysplasias.1,35 The percentage of patients with a positive family history was higher in the OC group, which should have resulted in more advanced adenomas in that group. The fact that similar numbers of advanced adenomas were seen in the two groups further reinforces the potential of CTC for screening.
In conclusion, CTC and OC screening methods resulted in similar detection rates for advanced neoplasias within the same general population. This finding is important because advanced neoplasms represent the primary target of colorectal screening and cancer prevention. The marked decrease in the use of OC and total rates of polypectomies in the CTC group suggests that this technique is a safe, clinically effective, and cost-effective filter for therapeutic OC. Furthermore, by combining primary CTC and primary OC screening efforts, with the choice between tests driven by patient preference, the overall screening compliance for total colonic examination could substantially increase.
Dr. Kim reports serving on the medical advisory board for C.B. Fleet and receiving lecture fees from Viatronix; Dr. Pickhardt, receiving consulting fees from C.B. Fleet, Viatronix, Medicsight, and Philips Medical Systems; and Dr. Gopal, receiving lecture fees from AstraZeneca. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We thank Holly C. Casson, R.N., B.S.N., clinical program coordinator for CTC; Stephanie Schiro, CTC program assistant; and Cara H. Olsen of the Biostatistics Consulting Center, Bethesda, MD, for statistical-analysis support.
Source Information
From the Department of Radiology (D.H.K., P.J.P., A.J.T., W.K.L., T.C.W., J.L.H.) and the Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (D.V.G., M.R., R.H.H., P.R.P.), University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Kim at the Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin Medical School, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI 53792-3252, or at dkim@uwhealth.org.
- References
References
1
Winawer SJ ,Zauber AG . The advanced adenoma as the primary target of screening. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2002;12:1-9
CrossRef | Medline2
Muto T ,Bussey HJ ,Morson BC . The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 1975;36:2251-2270
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Bond JH . Clinical evidence for the adenoma-carcinoma sequence, and the management of patients with colorectal adenomas. Semin Gastrointest Dis 2000;11:176-184
Medline4
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 | Medline5
Pickhardt PJ ,Choi JR ,Hwang I , et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2191-2200
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline6
Kim DH ,Pickhardt PJ ,Taylor AJ . Characteristics of advanced adenomas detected at CT colonography screening: implications for appropriate polyp size thresholds for polypectomy versus surveillance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:940-944
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Pickhardt PJ ,Taylor AJ ,Kim DH ,Reichelderfer M ,Gopal DV ,Pfau PR . Screening for colorectal neoplasia with CT colonography: initial experience from the first year of coverage by third-party payers. Radiology 2006;241:417-425
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Kim DH ,Pickhardt PJ ,Hinshaw JL ,Taylor AJ ,Mukherjee R ,Pfau PR . Prospective blinded trial comparing 45-ml and 90-ml doses of oral sodium phosphate for bowel preparation before computed tomographic colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31:53-58
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Pickhardt PJ ,Lee AD ,McFarland EG ,Taylor AJ . Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays. Radiology 2005;236:872-878
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Zalis ME ,Barish MA ,Choi JR , et al. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 2005;236:3-9
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Bond JH . Clinical relevance of the small colorectal polyp. Endoscopy 2001;33:454-457
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Pickhardt PJ ,Choi JR ,Hwang I ,Schindler WR . Nonadenomatous polyps at CT colonography: prevalence, size distribution, and detection rates. Radiology 2004;232:784-790
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Jemal A ,Siegel R ,Ward E , et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006;56:106-130
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Lieberman DA ,Weiss DG ,Bond JH ,Ahnen DJ ,Garewal H ,Chejfec G . Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343:162-168[Erratum, N Engl J Med 2000;343:1204.]
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline15
Schoenfeld P ,Cash B ,Flood A , et al. Colonoscopic screening of average-risk women for colorectal neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2061-2068
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline16
Pickhardt PJ ,Hassan C ,Laghi A ,Zullo A ,Kim DH ,Morini S . Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomographic colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer 2007;109:2213-2221
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Imperiale TF ,Wagner DR ,Lin CY ,Larkin GN ,Rogge JD ,Ransohoff DF . Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings. N Engl J Med 2000;343:169-174
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline18
Barclay RL ,Vicari JJ ,Doughty AS ,Johanson JF ,Greenlaw RL . Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2533-2541
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline19
Regula J ,Rupinski M ,Kraszewska E , et al. Colonoscopy in colorectal-cancer screening for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1863-1872
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline20
Lin OS ,Kozarek RA ,Schembre DB , et al. Risk stratification for colon neoplasia: screening strategies using colonoscopy and computerized tomographic colonography. Gastroenterology 2006;131:1011-1019
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Shinya H ,Wolff WI . Morphology, anatomic distribution and cancer potential of colonic polyps. Ann Surg 1979;190:679-683
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Butterly LF ,Chase MP ,Pohl H ,Fiarman GS . Prevalence of clinically important histology in small adenomas. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:343-348
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Church JM . Clinical significance of small colorectal polyps. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47:481-485
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Odom SR ,Duffy SD ,Barone JE ,Ghevariya V ,McClane SJ . The rate of adenocarcinoma in endoscopically removed colorectal polyps. Am Surg 2005;71:1024-1026
Web of Science | Medline25
Rex DK ,Lieberman D . ACG colorectal cancer prevention action plan: update on CT-colonography. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:1410-1413
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Welin S ,Youker J ,Spratt JS . The rates and patterns of growth of 375 tumors of the large intestine and rectum observed serially by double contrast enema study (Malmö technique). Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1963;90:673-687
Medline27
Hofstad B ,Vatn MH ,Larsen S ,Osnes M . Growth of colorectal polyps: recovery and evaluation of unresected polyps of less than 10 mm, 1 year after detection. Scand J Gastroenterol 1994;29:640-645
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Hofstad B ,Vatn MH ,Andersen SN , et al. Growth of colorectal polyps: redetection and evaluation of unresected polyps for a period of three years. Gut 1996;39:449-456
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline29
Knoernschild HE . Growth rate and malignant potential of colonic polyps: early results. Surg Forum 1963;14:137-138
Medline30
Waye JD ,Lewis BS ,Yessayan S . Colonoscopy: a prospective report of complications. J Clin Gastroenterol 1992;15:347-351
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline31
Levin TR ,Zhao W ,Conell C , et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:880-886
Web of Science | Medline32
Pickhardt PJ . The incidence of colonic perforation at CT colonography: review of the existing data and the implications for screening of asymptomatic adults. Radiology 2006;239:313-316
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline33
Radiation risk in perspective: position statement of the Health Physics Society. Adopted January 1996, revised August 2004. McLean, VA: Health Physics Society, 2004.
34
Brenner DJ ,Georgsson MA . Mass screening with CT colonography: should radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology 2005;129:328-337
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline35
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;98:371-379
Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (158)
Citing Articles
1
Xujiong Ye, Greg Slabaugh. 2012. A Model-Driven Bayesian Method for Polyp Detection and False Positive Suppression in CT Colonography Computer-Aided Detection. , 220-237.
CrossRef2
Carmen Zueco Zueco, Carolina Sobrido Sampedro, Juan D. Corroto, Paula Rodriguez Fernández, Manuela Fontanillo Fontanillo. (2012) CT colonography without cathartic preparation: positive predictive value and patient experience in clinical practice. European Radiology
CrossRef3
Yuji Toiyama, Ajay Goel. (2012) The Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Predictive Potential of MicroRNA Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer. Current Colorectal Cancer Reports
CrossRef4
Jay A. Harolds, Alan D. Kaye, Mark J. Adams. (2012) Challenges to Radiologists: Responding to the Socioeconomic and Political Issues Keeping Radiologists Up at Night: The Third Annual Open Microphone Sessions at the 2011 AMCLC. Journal of the American College of Radiology 9:1, 20-26
CrossRef5
Esther M Stoop, Margriet C de Haan, Thomas R de Wijkerslooth, Patrick M Bossuyt, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, C Yung Nio, Marc J van de Vijver, Katharina Biermann, Maarten Thomeer, Monique E van Leerdam, Paul Fockens, Jaap Stoker, Ernst J Kuipers, Evelien Dekker. (2012) Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Oncology 13:1, 55-64
CrossRef6
Perry J Pickhardt. (2012) Strong evidence in support of CT colonography screening. The Lancet Oncology 13:1, 6-7
CrossRef7
C. Ridereau-Zins, F. Pilleul, Y. Gandon, V. Laurent. (2012) CT colonography: Why? When? How?. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging 93:1, 2-9
CrossRef8
C. Ridereau-Zins, F. Pilleul, Y. Gandon, V. Laurent. (2012) Le coloscanner : pourquoi ? Pour qui ? Comment ?. Journal de Radiologie diagnostique et interventionnelle 93:1, 3-10
CrossRef9
David H. Kim, B. Dustin Pooler, Jennifer M. Weiss, Perry J. Pickhardt. (2011) Five year colorectal cancer outcomes in a large negative CT colonography screening cohort. European Radiology
CrossRef10
Eric A. Sherer, Timothy D. Imler, Thomas F. Imperiale. (2011) The effect of colonoscopy preparation quality on adenoma detection rates. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
CrossRef11
Shelby J. Fishback, Perry J. Pickhardt, Sanjeev Bhalla, Christine O. Menias, Robert G. Congdon, Michael Macari. (2011) Delayed presentation of splenic rupture following colonoscopy: clinical and CT findings. Emergency Radiology 18:6, 539-544
CrossRef12
Toshiyuki Yoshikawa, Yasuo Takehara, Masataka Kikuyama, Ken Takeuchi, Hiroyuki Hanai. (2011) Computed tomographic enteroclysis with air and virtual enteroscopy: Protocol and feasibility for small bowel evaluation. Digestive and Liver Disease
CrossRef13
Darren Boone, Steve Halligan, Stuart A. Taylor. (2011) Evidence Review and Status Update on Computed Tomography Colonography. Current Gastroenterology Reports 13:5, 486-494
CrossRef14
Christopher M. Buchach, David H. Kim, Perry J. Pickhardt. (2011) Performing an additional decubitus series at CT colonography. Abdominal Imaging 36:5, 538-544
CrossRef15
Sarit Badiani, Silvia Tomas Hernandez, Sharad Karandikar, Shuvro Roy-Choudhury. (2011) CT Colonography to exclude colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients. European Radiology 21:10, 2029-2038
CrossRef16
Keiji Matsuda, Toshiaki Watanabe, Soichiro Ishihara, Keijiro Nozawa, Tamuro Hayama, Hideki Yamada, Hisae Iinuma. (2011) The use of CT colonography to detect a synchronous early colorectal cancer in a patient with obstructive colorectal tumour. Surgical Practiceno-no
CrossRef17
Perry J Pickhardt, Lawrence J Lee, Alejandro Muñoz del Rio, Travis Lauder, Richard J Bruce, Ron M Summers, B Dustin Pooler, Neil Binkley. (2011) Simultaneous screening for osteoporosis at CT colonography: Bone mineral density assessment using MDCT attenuation techniques compared with the DXA reference standard. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 26:9, 2194-2203
CrossRef18
Jason A. Dominitz, Cynthia W. Ko. (2011) Will colon capsule endoscopy replace screening colonoscopy?. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 74:3, 590-592
CrossRef19
Ulriikka Chaput, Sara Folgado Alberto, Benoit Terris, Frederic Beuvon, Etienne Audureau, Romain Coriat, Herve Roche, Marianne Gaudric, Frederic Prat, Stanislas Chaussade. (2011) Risk factors for advanced adenomas amongst small and diminutive colorectal polyps: A prospective monocenter study. Digestive and Liver Disease 43:8, 609-612
CrossRef20
J.E. Martín-López, A.M. Carlos-Gil, L. Luque-Romero, S. Flores-Moreno. (2011) Efficacy of CT colonography versus colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Radiología (English Edition) 53:4, 355-363
CrossRef21
J.E. Martín-López, A.M. Carlos-Gil, L. Luque-Romero, S. Flores-Moreno. (2011) Eficacia de la colonografía por tomografía computarizada frente a la colonoscopia como prueba de cribado del cáncer colorrectal. Radiología 53:4, 355-363
CrossRef22
J. J. Puente Gutiérrez, M. A. Marín Moreno, J. L. Domínguez Jiménez, E. Bernal Blanco, J. M. Díaz Iglesias. (2011) Effectiveness of a colonoscopic screening programme in first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer. Colorectal Disease 13:6, e145-e153
CrossRef23
Wei Zeng, Joseph Marino, Arie Kaufman, Xianfeng David Gu. (2011) Volumetric colon wall unfolding using harmonic differentials. Computers & Graphics 35:3, 726-732
CrossRef24
D. Boone, S. Halligan, R. Frost, C. Kay, A. Laghi, P. Lefere, E. Neri, J. Stoker, S.A. Taylor. (2011) CT colonography: Who attends training? A survey of participants at educational workshops. Clinical Radiology 66:6, 510-516
CrossRef25
Cody J. Boyce, John R. Vetter, Perry J. Pickhardt. (2011) MDCT artifact related to the intra-scan gravitational flow of opacified luminal fluid (the “Dense Waterfall” sign). Abdominal Imaging
CrossRef26
Richard Duszak, David H. Kim, Perry J. Pickhardt. (2011) Expanding Utilization and Regional Coverage of Diagnostic CT Colonography: Early Medicare Claims Experience. Journal of the American College of Radiology 8:4, 235-241
CrossRef27
Erlangga Yusuf, Jasper Florie, Chung Yung Nio, Sebastian Jensch, Rutger A.J. Nievelstein, Lubbertus Baak, Jaap Stoker. (2011) Incidental extracolonic findings on bright lumen MR colonography in a population at increased risk for colorectal carcinoma. European Journal of Radiology 78:1, 135-141
CrossRef28
Olivier Lucidarme, Mehdi Cadi, Genevieve Berger, Julien Taieb, Thierry Poynard, Philippe Grenier, Ariel Beresniak. (2011) Cost-effectiveness modeling of colorectal cancer: Computed tomography colonography vs colonoscopy or fecal occult blood tests. European Journal of Radiology
CrossRef29
David H. Kim, Perry J. Pickhardt. (2011) Colorectal cancer: Managing diminutive polyps—what is the optimal approach?. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 8:3, 129-131
CrossRef30
Pauline Chauvin, Jean-Michel Josselin, Denis Heresbach. (2011) Incremental net benefit and acceptability of alternative health policies: a case study of mass screening for colorectal cancer. The European Journal of Health Economics
CrossRef31
Ancil K. Philip, Meghan G. Lubner, Bruce Harms. (2011) Computed Tomographic Colonography. Surgical Clinics of North America 91:1, 127-139
CrossRef32
Philippe Lefere, Stefaan Gryspeerdt. (2011) CT colonography: avoiding traps and pitfalls. Insights into Imaging 2:1, 57-68
CrossRef33
Stefanie Weinstein, Rizwan Aslam, Judy Yee. (2011) Evolution of CT colonography. Imaging in Medicine 3:1, 67-80
CrossRef34
Ji Yeon Kim, Seong Ho Park, Seung Soo Lee, Ah Young Kim, Hyun Kwon Ha. (2011) Ascending colon rotation following patient positional change during CT colonography: a potential pitfall in interpretation. European Radiology 21:2, 353-359
CrossRef35
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
CrossRef36
Kevin J. Chang, Satinder S. Rekhi, Stephan W. Anderson, Jorge A. Soto. (2011) Fluid Tagging for CT Colonography. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 35:1, 91-95
CrossRef37
Marjolein H. Liedenbaum, Ayso H. Vries, Anne F. Rijn, Helena M. Dekker, François E. J. A. Willemssen, Monique E. Leerdam, Corine J. Marrewijk, Paul Fockens, Shandra Bipat, Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, Evelien Dekker, Jaap Stoker. (2010) CT colonography with limited bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in an FOBT positive screening population. Abdominal Imaging 35:6, 661-668
CrossRef38
Mark Benson, Parul Dureja, Deepak Gopal, Mark Reichelderfer, Patrick R Pfau. (2010) A Comparison of Optical Colonoscopy and CT Colonography Screening Strategies in the Detection and Recovery of Subcentimeter Adenomas. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 105:12, 2578-2585
CrossRef39
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
CrossRef40
Denis Heresbach, Pauline Chauvin, Jacques Grolier, Jean-Michel Josselin. (2010) Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography or fecal blood tests. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 22:11, 1372-1379
CrossRef41
Joon Seok Lim, Sang Kil Lee, Woo Jin Hyung, Jin-Young Choi, Myeong-Jin Kim, Sung Hoon Noh, Ki Whang Kim. (2010) CT colonography for postoperative surveillance after curative gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Journal of Surgical Oncology 102:6, 593-598
CrossRef42
Yutaka J. Kawamura, Shinichiro Okada, Junichi Sasaki, Naoshi Tajima, Osamu Tanaka, Fumio Konishi. (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of CT colonography and optical colonoscopy evaluated using surgically resected specimens. Abdominal Imaging 35:5, 584-588
CrossRef43
Perry J. Pickhardt. (2010) Reply. Academic Radiology 17:10, 1317-1318
CrossRef44
Robert E Schoen, Jana G Hashash. (2010) Con: CT Colonography—Not Yet Ready for Community-Wide Implementation. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 105:10, 2132-2137
CrossRef45
Piet C. de Groen. (2010) Advanced Systems to Assess Colonoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 20:4, 699-716
CrossRef46
Roy Soetikno, Tonya Kaltenbach. (2010) High-quality CT Colonography Can Detect Nonpolypoid Colorectal Neoplasm (NP-CRN)—Science or Rhetoric?. Academic Radiology 17:10, 1317
CrossRef47
R. Harris. (2010) Speaking for the Evidence: Colonoscopy vs Computed Tomographic Colonography. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 102:16, 1212-1214
CrossRef48
Cesare Hassan, Perry J. Pickhardt, Douglas K. Rex. (2010) Performance improvements of imaging-based screening tests. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology 24:4, 493-507
CrossRef49
M. Sabanli, A. Balasingam, W. Bailey, T. Eglinton, P. Hider, F. A. Frizelle. (2010) Computed tomographic colonography in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery 97:8, 1291-1294
CrossRef50
Jae Yeon Wi, Se Hyung Kim, Jae Young Lee, Sang Gyun Kim, Joon Koo Han, Byung Ihn Choi. (2010) Electronic cleansing for CT colonography: does it help CAD software performance in a high-risk population for colorectal cancer?. European Radiology 20:8, 1905-1916
CrossRef51
Zhaohui Huang, Dan Huang, Shujuan Ni, Zhilei Peng, Weiqi Sheng, Xiang Du. (2010) Plasma microRNAs are promising novel biomarkers for early detection of colorectal cancer. International Journal of Cancer 127:1, 118-126
CrossRef52
Perry J. Pickhardt, Steven M. Wise, David H. Kim. (2010) Positive predictive value for polyps detected at screening CT colonography. European Radiology 20:7, 1651-1656
CrossRef53
Noriko Suzuki, Ana Ignjatovic, David Burling, Stuart A. Taylor. (2010) CT Colonography and Non-Polypoid Colorectal Neoplasms. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 20:3, 565-572
CrossRef54
Perry J. Pickhardt, Kendra S. Hain, David H. Kim, Cesare Hassan. (2010) Low Rates of Cancer or High-Grade Dysplasia in Colorectal Polyps Collected From Computed Tomography Colonography Screening. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 8:7, 610-615
CrossRef55
B. Filoche. (2010) Exploration colique par la vidéocapsule: VCC. Acta Endoscopica 40:3, 163-164
CrossRef56
Cristiano Spada, Cesare Hassan, Riccardo Marmo, Lucio Petruzziello, Maria Elena Riccioni, Angelo Zullo, Paola Cesaro, Julia Pilz, Guido Costamagna. (2010) Meta-analysis Shows Colon Capsule Endoscopy Is Effective in Detecting Colorectal Polyps. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 8:6, 516-522.e8
CrossRef57
Perry J. Pickhardt, David H. Kim, Jessica B. Robbins. (2010) Flat (Nonpolypoid) Colorectal Lesions Identified at CT Colonography in a U.S. Screening Population. Academic Radiology 17:6, 784-790
CrossRef58
Ayso H. Vries, Shandra Bipat, Evelien Dekker, Marjolein H. Liedenbaum, Jasper Florie, Paul Fockens, Roel Kraan, Elizabeth M. Mathus-Vliegen, Johannes B. Reitsma, Roel Truyen, Frans M. Vos, Aeilko H. Zwinderman, Jaap Stoker. (2010) Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences. European Radiology 20:6, 1404-1413
CrossRef59
Gerard Gay, Michel Delvaux, Muriel Frederic, Isaac Fassler. (2010) Could the Colonic Capsule PillCam Colon Be Clinically Useful for Selecting Patients Who Deserve a Complete Colonoscopy?: Results of Clinical Comparison With Colonoscopy in the Perspective of Colorectal Cancer Screening. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 105:5, 1076-1086
CrossRef60
Amnon Sonnenberg. (2010) How many polyps are there?. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 71:6, 1009-1012
CrossRef61
Jonathan A. Rosenberg, David T. Rubin. (2010) Performance of CT Colonography in Clinical Trials. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 20:2, 193-207
CrossRef62
Dipti K. Lenhart, Michael E. Zalis. (2010) Debate: Diminutive Polyps Noted at CT Colonography Need Not Be Reported. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 20:2, 227-237
CrossRef63
David H. Kim, Perry J. Pickhardt. (2010) Radiologists Should Read CT Colonography. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 20:2, 259-269
CrossRef64
Lewis K. Shin, Peter Poullos, R. Brooke Jeffrey. (2010) MR Colonography and MR Enterography. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 20:2, 323-346
CrossRef65
Peter D. Poullos, Christopher F. Beaulieu. (2010) Current Techniques in the Performance, Interpretation, and Reporting of CT Colonography. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 20:2, 169-192
CrossRef66
Daniele Regge, Giovanni Galatola, Cristiana Laudi, Gabriella Iussich. (2010) Role of CT colonography in screening programs. Imaging in Medicine 2:2, 181-194
CrossRef67
Perry J. Pickhardt, David H. Kim. (2010) Performance of CT Colonography for Detecting Small, Diminutive, and Flat Polyps. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 20:2, 209-226
CrossRef68
, J. M. Canard, D. Heresbach, J.-C. Letard, R. Laugier. (2010) La coloscopie en France en 2008: résultats de l’enquête de deux jours d’endoscopie en France. Acta Endoscopica 40:2, 58-65
CrossRef69
Reza Akhtar, Michelle Lee, Steven H. Itzkowitz. (2010) Colonoscopy Versus Computed Tomography Colonography for Colorectal Cancer Screening. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine 77:2, 214-224
CrossRef70
Cody J. Boyce, Perry J. Pickhardt, Edward M. Lawrence, David H. Kim, Richard J. Bruce. (2010) Prevalence of Urolithiasis in Asymptomatic Adults: Objective Determination Using Low Dose Noncontrast Computerized Tomography. The Journal of Urology 183:3, 1017-1021
CrossRef71
Amela Sofic, Serif Beslic, Igor Kocijancic, Nedzad Sehovic. (2010) CT colonography in detection of colorectal carcinoma. Radiology and Oncology 44:1, 19-23
CrossRef72
Franco Iafrate, Cesare Hassan, Perry J. Pickhardt, Alessandro Pichi, Andrea Stagnitti, Angelo Zullo, Emilio Di Giulio, Andrea Laghi. (2010) Portrait of a polyp: the CTC dilemma. Abdominal Imaging 35:1, 49-54
CrossRef73
Delia Campanella, Lia Morra, Silvia Delsanto, Vincenzo Tartaglia, Roberto Asnaghi, Alberto Bert, Emanuele Neri, Daniele Regge. (2010) Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography. European Radiology 20:2, 348-358
CrossRef74
D.K. Lenhart, J. Babb, J. Bonavita, D. Kim, E.J. Bini, A.J. Megibow, M. Macari. (2010) Comparison of a unidirectional panoramic 3D endoluminal interpretation technique to traditional 2D and bidirectional 3D interpretation techniques at CT colonography: preliminary observations. Clinical Radiology 65:2, 118-125
CrossRef75
PERRY J. PICKHARDT, DAVID H. KIM. 2010. 3D Imaging Displays at CTC. , 391-413.
CrossRef76
PERRY J. PICKHARDT, DAVID H. KIM. 2010. Endoscopic and Surgical Referral from CTC. , 425-438.
CrossRef77
PERRY J. PICKHARDT, DAVID H. KIM. 2010. Indications for Performing CT Colonography. , 77-92.
CrossRef78
DAVID H. KIM, PERRY J. PICKHARDT. 2010. Reporting of Results and Quality Metrics in CTC. , 474-488.
CrossRef79
Reinhold W. Stockbrugger. (2010) Targeting Chemoprevention of Colorectal Cancer to Those Who Are Likely to Respond. Current Colorectal Cancer Reports 6:1, 44-47
CrossRef80
DAVID H. KIM, PERRY J. PICKHARDT. 2010. Building a Clinical CT Colonography Program. , 68-76.
CrossRef81
DAVID H. KIM, PERRY J. PICKHARDT. 2010. Bowel Preparation for CT Colonography. , 115-130.
CrossRef82
PERRY J. PICKHARDT, DAVID H. KIM. 2010. Evaluation for Invasive Cancer at CTC. , 332-357.
CrossRef83
DAVID H. KIM, PERRY J. PICKHARDT. 2010. MDCT Protocol for CT Colonography. , 148-156.
CrossRef84
DAVID H. KIM, PERRY J. PICKHARDT. 2010. Colonic Distention for CT Colonography. , 131-147.
CrossRef85
Sebastiaan Jensch, Shandra Bipat, Jan Peringa, Ayso H. Vries, Anneke Heutinck, Evelien Dekker, Lubbertus C. Baak, Alexander D. Montauban van Swijndregt, Jaap Stoker. (2010) CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. European Radiology 20:1, 146-156
CrossRef86
Antonella Lostumbo, Christian Wanamaker, Joy Tsai, Kenji Suzuki, Abraham H. Dachman. (2010) Comparison of 2D and 3D Views for Evaluation of Flat Lesions in CT Colonography. Academic Radiology 17:1, 39-47
CrossRef87
PERRY J. PICKHARDT, DAVID H. KIM. 2010. Polyp Detection at CTC. , 183-195.
CrossRef88
PERRY J. PICKHARDT, DAVID H. KIM. 2010. CT Colonography at the University of Wisconsin. , 491-507.
CrossRef89
PERRY J. PICKHARDT, DAVID H. KIM. 2010. Polypoid Lesions at CTC. , 196-215.
CrossRef90
DAVID H. KIM, PERRY J. PICKHARDT. 2010. Future Directions for Virtual Colonoscopy. , 102-112.
CrossRef91
PERRY J. PICKHARDT, DAVID H. KIM. 2010. Potential Pitfalls at CTC Interpretation. , 239-331.
CrossRef92
V.F. van Ravesteijn, C. van Wijk, F.M. Vos, R. Truyen, J.F. Peters, J. Stoker, L.J. van Vliet. (2010) Computer-Aided Detection of Polyps in CT Colonography Using Logistic Regression. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 29:1, 120-131
CrossRef93
DAVID H. KIM, PERRY J. PICKHARDT. 2010. CTC Program Results at the University of Wisconsin. , 508-512.
CrossRef94
PERRY J. PICKHARDT, DAVID H. KIM. 2010. Colorectal Cancer Screening. , 44-50.
CrossRef95
PERRY J. PICKHARDT, DAVID H. KIM. 2010. Discordant Findings at CTC—Endoscopic Evaluation. , 439-450.
CrossRef96
DAVID H. KIM, PERRY J. PICKHARDT. 2010. Colorectal Polyps. , 3-9.
CrossRef97
PERRY J. PICKHARDT, DAVID H. KIM. 2010. Colorectal Polyps. , 10-22.
CrossRef98
PERRY J. PICKHARDT. 2010. CT Colonography. , 53-59.
CrossRef99
DAVID H. KIM, PERRY J. PICKHARDT. 2010. Clinical Validation of CTC Performance. , 60-67.
CrossRef100
Kenji Suzuki, Don C. Rockey, Abraham H. Dachman. (2010) CT colonography: Advanced computer-aided detection scheme utilizing MTANNs for detection of “missed” polyps in a multicenter clinical trial. Medical Physics 37:1, 12
CrossRef101
Perry J Pickhardt. (2010) Noninvasive radiologic imaging of the large intestine: a valuable complement to optical colonoscopy. Current Opinion in Gastroenterology 26:1, 61-68
CrossRef102
DAVID H. KIM, PERRY J. PICKHARDT. 2010. Colorectal Cancer. , 23-32.
CrossRef103
Benjamin Y. Durkee, Kazuhiko Shinki, Michael A. Newton, Caitlin E. Iverson, Jamey P. Weichert, William F. Dove, Richard B. Halberg. (2009) Longitudinal Assessment of Colonic Tumor Fate in Mice by Computed Tomography and Optical Colonoscopy. Academic Radiology 16:12, 1475-1482
CrossRef104
P. Thermann, T. Seufferlein. (2009) Primäre und sekundäre Prävention sporadischer kolorektaler Karzinome. Der Onkologe 15:12, 1193-1205
CrossRef105
Steven J. Heitman, Paul E. Ronksley, Robert J. Hilsden, Braden J. Manns, Alaa Rostom, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn. (2009) Prevalence of Adenomas and Colorectal Cancer in Average Risk Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 7:12, 1272-1278
CrossRef106
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
CrossRef107
C. Pox, S. Schmiegel, K. Schulmann, S. Stemmler, H. Schrader, I.A. Adamietz. (2009) Prävention und Diagnose kolorektaler Karzinome. Der Onkologe 15:10, 1033-1048
CrossRef108
Lennox Hoyte, Linda Brubaker, Julia R. Fielding, Mark E. Lockhart, Marta E. Heilbrun, Caryl G. Salomon, Wen Ye, Morton B. Brown, . (2009) Measurements from image-based three dimensional pelvic floor reconstruction: A study of inter- and intraobserver reliability. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 30:2, 344-350
CrossRef109
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 Text110
G. Rennert. (2009) Are We Getting Closer to Molecular Population Screening for Colorectal Cancer?. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101:13, 902-903
CrossRef111
Nicholas J. West, Christian Boustière, Wolfgang Fischbach, Fabrizio Parente, Roger. J. Leicester. (2009) Colorectal cancer screening in Europe: differences in approach; similar barriers to overcome. International Journal of Colorectal Disease 24:7, 731-740
CrossRef112
Jessica P. Shah, Linda S. Hynan, Don C. Rockey. (2009) Management of Small Polyps Detected by Screening CT Colonography: Patient and Physician Preferences. The American Journal of Medicine 122:7, 687.e1-687.e9
CrossRef113
Denis Heresbach, Pauline Chauvin, Aurélie Hess-Migliorretti, Françoise Riou, Jacques Grolier, Jean-Michel Josselin. (2009) Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography according to a polyp size threshold for polypectomy. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology1
CrossRef114
Perry J. Pickhardt, Clark Schumacher, David H. Kim. (2009) Polyp Detection at 3-Dimensional Endoluminal Computed Tomography Colonography: Sensitivity of One-Way Fly-Through at 120 Degrees Field-of-View Angle. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 33:4, 631-635
CrossRef115
Koichi Nagata, Tomohiko Okawa, Akihiro Honma, Shungo Endo, Shin-ei Kudo, Hiroyuki Yoshida. (2009) Full-laxative Versus Minimum-laxative Fecal-tagging CT Colonography Using 64-detector Row CT. Academic Radiology 16:7, 780-789
CrossRef116
Sergio Morini, Cesare Hassan, Angelo Zullo, Roberto Lorenzetti, Marina Matthaeis, Francesca Stella, Salvatore M.A. Campo. (2009) Detection of colonic polyps according to insertion/withdrawal phases of colonoscopy. International Journal of Colorectal Disease 24:5, 527-530
CrossRef117
Perry J. Pickhardt. (2009) Screening: CT colonography: time for clinical implementation. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 6:4, 187-188
CrossRef118
Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Ann G. Zauber, Rob Boer, Janneke Wilschut, J. Dik F. Habbema. (2009) At what costs will screening with CT colonography be competitive? A cost-effectiveness approach. International Journal of Cancer 124:5, 1161-1168
CrossRef119
Daniele Regge, Emanuele Neri, Francesca Turini, Gabriele Chiara. (2009) Role of CT colonography in inflammatory bowel disease. European Journal of Radiology 69:3, 404-408
CrossRef120
Perry J. Pickhardt, David H. Kim, Cesare Hassan. (2009) Advanced Neoplasia Detection Rates at Colonoscopy Screening: Implications for CT Colonography. Gastroenterology 136:3, 1121-1122
CrossRef121
C. Hoeffel, S. Mulé, B. Romaniuk, V. Ladam-Marcus, O. Bouché, C. Marcus. (2009) Advances in radiological imaging of gastrointestinal tumors. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 69:2, 153-167
CrossRef122
Zoltán Péter, Zsolt Tulassay. (2009) A kolonoszkópia a vastagbélszűrés elsődleges módszere. Orvosi Hetilap 150:7, 299-304
CrossRef123
B. Mühlhaupt, R. Schöfl, T. Rösch, P. Bauerfeind, W. Schwizer, H.-P. Wirth, G. Rogler, M. Fried. (2009) Gastro-Highlights 2008. Der Gastroenterologe 4:1, 74-77
CrossRef124
Janne Näppi, Hiroyuki Yoshida. (2009) Virtual tagging for laxative-free CT colonography: Pilot evaluation. Medical Physics 36:5, 1830
CrossRef125
Lincoln L. Berland. (2009) Incidental Extracolonic Findings on CT Colonography: The Impending Deluge and Its Implications. Journal of the American College of Radiology 6:1, 14-20
CrossRef126
Robert S. Bresalier. (2009) Early Detection of and Screening for Colorectal Neoplasia. Gut and Liver 3:2, 69
CrossRef127
S Virmani, AS Lev-Toaff, LM Ciancibello. (2009) Automatic polyp detection and measurement with computed tomographic colonography: A phantom study. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal 5:3,
CrossRef128
Baigalmaa Tsagaan, Janne Näppi, Hiroyuki Yoshida. (2009) Nonlinear regression-based method for pseudoenhancement correction in CT colonography. Medical Physics 36:8, 3596
CrossRef129
Koichi Nagata, Atsushi Iyama, Bunji Hanatsuka, Shungo Endo, Shin-ei Kudo. (2009) Carbon Dioxide Insufflation System for CT Colonography. Nippon Daicho Komonbyo Gakkai Zasshi 62:2, 129-131
CrossRef130
Elizabeth A. Krupinski. (2009) What Can the Radiologist Teach CAD. Academic Radiology 16:1, 1-3
CrossRef131
Ehab A. Molokhia, Allen Perkins. (2008) Preventing Cancer. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 35:4, 609-623
CrossRef132
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
CrossRef133
Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, James E. East, Stuart A. Taylor. (2008) CT colonography and cost-effectiveness. European Radiology 18:11, 2485-2497
CrossRef134
Michel Delvaux, Gérard Gay. (2008) Capsule endoscopy: Technique and indications. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology 22:5, 813-837
CrossRef135
Anna M. Buchner, Michael B. Wallace. (2008) Future expectations in digestive endoscopy: Competition with other novel imaging techniques. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology 22:5, 971-987
CrossRef136
David Lieberman, Matthew Moravec, Jennifer Holub, Leann Michaels, Glenn Eisen. (2008) Polyp Size and Advanced Histology in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy Screening: Implications for CT Colonography. Gastroenterology 135:4, 1100-1105
CrossRef137
Fletcher, Robert H., . (2008) Colorectal Cancer Screening on Stronger Footing. New England Journal of Medicine 359:12, 1285-1287
Full Text138
Ania Z. Kielar, Robert H. El-Maraghi. (2008) Canadian Colorectal Cancer Screening Initiatives and Barriers. Journal of the American College of Radiology 5:9, 951-957
CrossRef139
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
CrossRef140
Stuart A. Taylor, Gen Iinuma, Yutaka Saito, Jie Zhang, Steve Halligan. (2008) CT colonography: computer-aided detection of morphologically flat T1 colonic carcinoma. European Radiology 18:8, 1666-1673
CrossRef141
David Lieberman. (2008) Screening, Surveillance, and Prevention of Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 18:3, 595-605
CrossRef142
Rizwan Aslam, Judy Yee. (2008) Computed tomographic colonography. Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2:3, 371-384
CrossRef143
A. Eickhoff, A. Hahn, J.F. Riemann. (2008) Beispiele für Screeninguntersuchungen. Der Internist 49:6, 660-672
CrossRef144
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
CrossRef145
Perry J. Pickhardt, David H. Kim. (2008) Computerized Tomography Colonography: A Primer for Gastroenterologists. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 6:5, 497-502
CrossRef146
Steve Halligan, Stuart A Taylor. (2008) Is CT colonography superior to colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia?. Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & Hepatology 5:5, 248-249
CrossRef147
Jordan Sheran, Abraham H. Dachman. (2008) Quality of CT Colonography–Related Web Sites for Consumers. Journal of the American College of Radiology 5:4, 593-597
CrossRef148
A. Abraldes Bechiarelli, G. Santamaría Rodríguez, C. Rodríguez Ramos. (2008) Tumores de intestino grueso. Medicine - Programa de Formación Médica Continuada Acreditado 10:7, 442-448
CrossRef149
C. Pox, S. Schmiegel. (2008) Vorsorge/Prävention. Der Gastroenterologe 3:2, 100-105
CrossRef150
P. E. YOUNG, A. B. GENTRY, B. D. CASH. (2008) The utility of flexible sigmoidoscopy after a computerized tomographic colonography revealing only rectosigmoid lesions. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 27:6, 520-527
CrossRef151
A. Eickhoff, D. Hartmann, J. Striegel, J.F. Riemann. (2008) Früherkennung und Primärprävention des Dickdarmkrebses. Der Onkologe 14:2, 131-141
CrossRef152
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
CrossRef153
C. HASSAN, A. LAGHI, P. J. PICKHARDT, D. H. KIM, A. ZULLO, F. IAFRATE, S. MORINI. (2008) Projected impact of colorectal cancer screening with computerized tomographic colonography on current radiological capacity in Europe. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 27:4, 366-374
CrossRef154
(2008) CT Colonography versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Advanced Neoplasia. New England Journal of Medicine 358:1, 88-90
Full Text155
Federico Sopeña, Angel Ferrandez, Angel Lanas. (2008) Noninvasive diagnostic modalities for early detection of colorectal cancer. Current Colorectal Cancer Reports 4:1, 24-33
CrossRef156
(2008) CT colonography enables selective polypectomy in advanced neoplasia. Nature Clinical Practice Oncology 5:1, 9-9
CrossRef157
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
CrossRef158
Jean-François Rey. (2007) Coloscopie Virtuelle ou Endoscopie Électronique À Haute Définition. Acta Endoscopica 37:5, 686-687
CrossRef
- Letters
