ライフサイエンスコーパス: extracolonic

1 ndoscopic examinations and the assessment of extracolonic abdominal and pelvic organs.

2 uent investigations, ultimate diagnosis, and extracolonic cancer diagnoses 1 and 3 years after testin

3 uded invasive CRC in 22 patients (0.21%) and extracolonic cancer in 36 patients (0.35%).

4 about one invasive CRC per 500 cases and one extracolonic cancer per 300 cases.

5 Rates of CRN and extracolonic cancer were compared to patients undergoing

6 -22), endometrial cancer (6.1; 4.6-8.2), and extracolonic cancers (3.3; 2.4-4.6).

7 on cancer were significantly higher than for extracolonic cancers (P < .0001).

8 sposition gene with a high lifetime risk for extracolonic cancers and a typical mutational signature

9 .0001) increase in their perceived risk for extracolonic cancers and increased both colonoscopy (P =

10 h syndrome are less aware of their risks for extracolonic cancers and undergo endometrial cancer scre

11 reased risk of colorectal neoplasia (CRN) or extracolonic cancers has not been robustly established.

12 tion and investigate the risk of colonic and extracolonic cancers in family members and their relativ

13 ely 44 years), involving CRC and the several extracolonic cancers that are integral to the syndrome.

14 ot associated with increased risk of CRN and extracolonic cancers when compared to controls undergoin

15 al history, and risk factors for colonic and extracolonic cancers.

16 mbining E1 and E2 categories into an updated extracolonic category of E1/E2 since, irrespective of wh

17 Additionally, the update simplifies extracolonic classification by combining E1 and E2 categ

18 Additional work-up of extracolonic CT colonographic findings was relatively in

19 Extracolonic CT findings were classified into high, medi

20 The majority of important extracolonic diagnoses were vascular aneurysms (n = 18).

21 Detection of relevant unsuspected extracolonic disease at CT colonographic screening is no

22 vere disease (>1000 adenomas), but three had extracolonic disease.

23 The percentage of patients with at least one extracolonic finding was 55.4% (113 of 204) for nonsenio

24 least one reported polyp, with at least one extracolonic finding, as well as the frequency of RAIs.

25 oplasia prevalence and colonoscopy referral, extracolonic finding, extracolonic work-up, and complica

26 total of $7,324 was required for work-up for extracolonic findings (mean of an additional $28 per exa

27 c findings (P = .25) or clinically important extracolonic findings (P = .11).

28 and high-risk patients in the percentages of extracolonic findings (P = .25) or clinically important

29 update on the scheme used for colorectal and extracolonic findings at CTC.

30 Of the 596 extracolonic findings identified, 50 (8.4%) were thought

31 stitutional review board approval, evaluated extracolonic findings in 2195 consecutive asymptomatic a

32 Symptoms were explained by extracolonic findings in 4 patients analyzed by barium e

33 To assess the prevalence and spectrum of extracolonic findings in a screening population undergoi

34 specificity of screening CT colonography for extracolonic findings in clinical practice is likely to

35 Judicious handling of potential extracolonic findings is warranted to balance the cost o

36 It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefi

37 CTC commonly detects extracolonic findings that can be considered clinically

38 Further diagnostic workup for unsuspected extracolonic findings was performed in 133 (6.1%) of 219

39 Extracolonic findings were classified as having high, mo

40 Extracolonic findings were found commonly.

41 Extracolonic findings were investigated in 142 patients

42 Extracolonic findings were more frequent in seniors than

43 Extracolonic findings were recorded and categorized as e

44 All diagnostic workups generated because of extracolonic findings were reviewed.

45 Potentially important extracolonic findings were seen in 15.4% (89 of 577) of

46 (maximum acceptable false-positive rate for extracolonic findings) was calculated overall and for bo

47 city, (2) bowel preparation, (3) safety, (4) extracolonic findings, (5) patient acceptability, (6) tr

48 e 500 patients in the study, 315 (63.0%) had extracolonic findings, and 45 (9.0%) had clinically impo

49 ntial radiation-related harms, the effect of extracolonic findings, and the accuracy of test performa

50 frequency of polyps (>/=6 mm), the number of extracolonic findings, and the number of RAIs generated.

51 We determined the frequency and nature of extracolonic findings, subsequent investigations, ultima

52 ive rates for small polyps, the discovery of extracolonic findings, variability in performance, a lac

53 Thirty (11%) patients had highly important extracolonic findings, which resulted in further examina

54 y the frequency, nature, and consequences of extracolonic findings.

55 ings, and 45 (9.0%) had clinically important extracolonic findings.

56 y will be found to have clinically important extracolonic findings.

57 associated with the additional evaluation of extracolonic findings.

58 zing radiation exposure or identification of extracolonic findings.

59 ages of average- and high-risk patients with extracolonic findings.

60 rough March 2008, prospective colorectal and extracolonic interpretation was performed in 10,286 outp

61 hundreds to thousands of colonic polyps and extracolonic lesions including desmoid fibromas, osteoma

62 ntestinal tumors, as well as in incidence of extracolonic lesions.

63 er, the proportion of patients found to have extracolonic malignancies after 1 year of CTC examinatio

64 There were significantly more extracolonic malignancies detected than expected 1 year

65 s were made in 55 (2.5%) patients, including extracolonic malignancies in nine patients.

66 Extracolonic malignancies included renal cell carcinoma

67 Three extracolonic malignancies were overlooked at CT colonogr

68 ith HPS have an increased risk for colon and extracolonic malignancies.

69 The first experiment detected one extracolonic malignancy per 600 cases with a false-posit

70 ary radiologic tests to detect an additional extracolonic malignancy.

71 CT colonography in exchange for diagnosis of extracolonic malignancy.

72 addition, pancreatoblastoma may represent an extracolonic manifestation of FAP.

73 metrial carcinoma is the most common type of extracolonic neoplasia in the hereditary nonpolyposis co

74 Overall, CTC diagnosed extracolonic neoplasms in 72 of 1634 patients (4.4%); 26

75 CTC identified 72 extracolonic neoplasms, however, barium enema analysis f

76 ted CT colonography that examined intra- and extracolonic organs or CT colonography restricted to the

77 ptoms of colorectal cancer are found to have extracolonic pathologies by CTC analysis.

78 Extracolonic pathologies were detected in 959 patients b

79 The evaluation of extracolonic structures at CT colonography has definite

80 y in the United States and the most frequent extracolonic tumor in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal

81 A number of extracolonic tumors have been associated with the disord

82 Their clinical features include extracolonic tumors, onset of polyps in adolescence, and

83 than others to generate a broad spectrum of extracolonic tumors.

84 colonoscopy referral, extracolonic finding, extracolonic work-up, and complication rates were obtain