Gastroenterology · 2006
Risk stratification for colon neoplasia: screening strategies using colonoscopy and computerized tomographic colonography.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lin Otto S, Kozarek Richard A, Schembre Drew B, Ayub Kamran, Gluck Michael, Cantone Nico, Soon Maw-Soan, Dominitz Jason A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND & AIMS: We developed a risk index to identify low-risk patients who may be screened for colorectal cancer with computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) instead of colonoscopy.
METHODS: Asymptomatic persons aged 50 years or older who had undergone screening colonoscopy were randomized retrospectively to derivation (n = 1512) and validation (n = 1493) subgroups. We developed a risk index (based on age, sex, and family history) from the derivation group. The expected results of 3 screening strategies--universal colonoscopy, universal CTC, and a stratified strategy of colonoscopy for high-risk and CTC for low-risk patients--were then compared. Outcomes for the 3 strategies were extrapolated from the known colonic findings in each patient, using sensitivity/specificity values for CTC from the medical literature. Results were validated in the validation subgroup.
RESULTS: In the derivation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% of advanced neoplasia and universal CTC detected only 70% and resulted in the largest total number of procedures and number of patients undergoing both procedures. The stratified strategy detected 92% of advanced neoplasia, requiring colonoscopy in 68% and CTC in 36% of patients, with only 4% having to undergo both procedures. In the validation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% and universal CTC detected 71% of advanced neoplasia, whereas the stratified strategy detected 89%, requiring colonoscopy in 64% and CTC in 40%. Unlike universal CTC, the stratified strategy was independent of assumptions for CTC sensitivity, specificity, and threshold for colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: The stratified strategy based on our risk index may optimize the yield of colonoscopic resources and reduce the number of patients undergoing colonoscopy.
METHODS: Asymptomatic persons aged 50 years or older who had undergone screening colonoscopy were randomized retrospectively to derivation (n = 1512) and validation (n = 1493) subgroups. We developed a risk index (based on age, sex, and family history) from the derivation group. The expected results of 3 screening strategies--universal colonoscopy, universal CTC, and a stratified strategy of colonoscopy for high-risk and CTC for low-risk patients--were then compared. Outcomes for the 3 strategies were extrapolated from the known colonic findings in each patient, using sensitivity/specificity values for CTC from the medical literature. Results were validated in the validation subgroup.
RESULTS: In the derivation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% of advanced neoplasia and universal CTC detected only 70% and resulted in the largest total number of procedures and number of patients undergoing both procedures. The stratified strategy detected 92% of advanced neoplasia, requiring colonoscopy in 68% and CTC in 36% of patients, with only 4% having to undergo both procedures. In the validation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% and universal CTC detected 71% of advanced neoplasia, whereas the stratified strategy detected 89%, requiring colonoscopy in 64% and CTC in 40%. Unlike universal CTC, the stratified strategy was independent of assumptions for CTC sensitivity, specificity, and threshold for colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: The stratified strategy based on our risk index may optimize the yield of colonoscopic resources and reduce the number of patients undergoing colonoscopy.