Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Sep;58(9):1242-9.
doi: 10.1136/gut.2009.176867. Epub 2009 Jul 21.

Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening

Affiliations

Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening

M H Liedenbaum et al. Gut. 2009 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CT colonography (CTC) as a triage technique in faecal occult blood test (FOBT)-positive screening participants.

Methods: Consecutive guaiac (G-FOBT) and immunochemical (I-FOBT) FOBT-positive patients scheduled for colonoscopy underwent CTC with iodine tagging bowel preparation. Each CTC was read independently by two experienced observers. Per patient sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated based on double reading with different CTC cut-off lesion sizes using segmental unblinded colonoscopy as the reference standard. The acceptability of the technique to patients was evaluated with questionnaires.

Results: 302 FOBT-positive patients were included (54 G-FOBT and 248 I-FOBT). 22 FOBT-positive patients (7%) had a colorectal carcinoma and 211 (70%) had a lesion >or=6 mm. Participants considered colonoscopy more burdensome than CTC (p<0.05). Using a 6 mm CTC size cut-off, per patient sensitivity for CTC was 91% (95% CI 85% to 91%) and specificity was 69% (95% CI 60% to 89%) for the detection of colonoscopy lesions >or=6 mm. The PPV of CTC was 87% (95% CI 80% to 93%) and NPV 77% (95% CI 69% to 85%). Using CTC as a triage technique in 100 FOBT-positive patients would mean that colonoscopy could be prevented in 28 patients while missing >or=10 mm lesions in 2 patients.

Conclusion: CTC with limited bowel preparation has reasonable predictive values in an FOBT-positive population and a higher acceptability to patients than colonoscopy. However, due to the high prevalence of clinically relevant lesions in FOBT-positive patients, CTC is unlikely to be an efficient triage technique in a first round FOBT population screening programme.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of faecal occult blood test (FOBT)-positive participants. CTC, CT colonography; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Plot of the positive predictive value (PPV) versus the negative predictive value (NPV) when using different cut-off sizes for CT colonography (CTC) for detection of true colonoscopy lesions of ⩾10 mm and ⩾6 mm. The curve shows a plot of PPV versus 1–NPV. Results for detection of patients with lesions on colonoscopy of ⩾10 mm, for cut-off sizes for CTC lesions of ⩾8, 9, 9.5, 10, 10.5, 11 and 12 mm are shown. Results for detection of lesions of ⩾6 mm are shown for CTC cut-off sizes of 4, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7 and 8 mm.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Degree of burden for both examinations overall. Participants found the colonoscopy examination significantly more burdensome than the colonoscopy preparation. (B) Degree of burden from CT colonography and colonoscopy bowel preparations. No significant difference was found between the degree of burden from the colonoscopy bowel preparation and the CT colonography bowel preparation.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale. Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003;124:544–60 - PubMed
    1. Bond JH. Polyp guideline: diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance for patients with colorectal polyps. Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95:3053–63 - PubMed
    1. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996;348:1472–7 - PubMed
    1. Heresbach D, Manfredi S, D’halluin PN, et al. Review in depth and meta-analysis of controlled trials on colorectal cancer screening by faecal occult blood test. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;18:427–33 - PubMed
    1. Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Irwig L, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(1):CD001216. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms