ライフサイエンスコーパス: CT colonography

1 o screening for colorectal cancer with FS or CT colonography.

2 gy in 131 lesions on colonoscopy after final CT colonography.

3 our abdominal radiologists with expertise in CT colonography.

4 ospective expert localization of polyps with CT colonography.

5 trate provided excellent colon cleansing for CT colonography.

6 d standardization, and (7) implementation of CT colonography.

7 virtual navigation and polyp registration at CT colonography.

8 ne patients had cardiac events subsequent to CT colonography.

9 ing with FS and 298 of 980 (30.4%) underwent CT colonography.

10 age, 59.2 years) with 338 polyps detected at CT colonography.

11 antly improved with tagging preparations for CT colonography.

12 nge in readers' estimations of polyp size at CT colonography.

13 past, current, and potential future role of CT colonography.

14 hether any important findings were missed at CT colonography.

15 patients; 21 (21.4%) of 98 were detected at CT colonography.

16 , a lesion larger than 10 mm was detected at CT colonography.

17 be assumed to be residual fecal material at CT colonography.

18 n 1 cm was similar to that with conventional CT colonography.

19 an quantitatively depict colonic diameter in CT colonography.

20 sensitivity may be achieved by adding prone CT colonography.

21 a phospho-soda preparation the day prior to CT colonography.

22 iagnostic performance or evaluation time for CT colonography.

23 ify all potential carpet lesions detected at CT colonography.

24 mon during colonic insufflation required for CT colonography.

25 compared with placebo in patients undergoing CT colonography.

26 performed in patients scheduled for elective CT colonography.

27 e newer tests, such as computed tomographic (CT) colonography.

28 n undergoing screening computed tomographic (CT) colonography.

29 ize, location, and morphologic appearance at CT colonography), 181 (10%) were not confirmed with init

30 latives were invited to undergo noncathartic CT colonography (200 mL of diatrizoate meglumine and dia

31 etween 1995 and 1998, 480 patients underwent CT colonography; 467 patients were available for assessm

32 y outcomes included total pain and burden of CT colonography (5-point scale), the most burdensome asp

33 n during CT colonography and may improve the CT colonography acceptance, especially for patients with

34 Prospective studies of adults undergoing CT colonography after full bowel preparation, with colon

35 ants (507 men, 475 women) underwent low-dose CT colonography after noncathartic bowel preparation (io

36 = 0.03) and were more willing to undergo PET/CT colonography again (36/43 [84%; 95% CI, 73%-95%] vs.

37 egistration by using an algorithm at initial CT colonography allowed prediction of endoluminal polyp

38 Over the past decade, computed tomographic (CT) colonography (also known as virtual colonoscopy) has

39 Computed tomographic (CT) colonography, also called virtual colonoscopy, is an

40 Computed tomographic (CT) colonography, also known as virtual colonoscopy or C

41 d be identified as diminutive at the initial CT colonography and 12.6% (26 of 207) were missed.

42 were consecutively recruited to undergo both CT colonography and colonoscopy (group 1), and a like gr

43 Reported discomfort was similar at CT colonography and colonoscopy (P =.63) but was less at

44 cantly less discomfort than expected at both CT colonography and colonoscopy but not at DCBE.

45 All participants underwent CT colonography and colonoscopy on the same day.

46 CT colonography and colonoscopy results were compared fo

47 Matching between findings from CT colonography and colonoscopy was allowed when lesions

48 CT colonography and colonoscopy were performed in 182 pa

49 ical discomfort was canvassed after both PET/CT colonography and colonoscopy.

50 The diagnostic performance for standalone CT colonography and combined PET/CT colonography was com

51 nts was separately recruited to undergo both CT colonography and DCBE (group 2).

52 range, 43-92 years), each of whom underwent CT colonography and DXA within a 6-month period (between

53 se of rectal cancer, as well as the place of CT colonography and fecal tests in post-CRC surveillance

54 Conclusion CT colonography and FS screening are well accepted, but

55 ly relevant reduction of maximum pain during CT colonography and may improve the CT colonography acce

56 ears; 505 women, 728 men) underwent same-day CT colonography and optical colonoscopy procedures.

57 ng with oral contrast agents, and subsequent CT colonography and segmentally unblinded colonoscopy.

58 ylbromide improves colonic distention during CT colonography and should be routinely administered whe

59 Findings at CT colonography and subsequent colonoscopy were recorded

60 ent, patients who had insurance coverage for CT colonography and were due for CRC screening had a 48%

61 cluded 63 consecutive patients who underwent CT colonography and who waived informed consent.

62 d in the cohort undergoing colonoscopy after CT colonography and/or surgery (there were no false-nega

63 e the acceptability of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screeni

64 ed polyp location automatically at follow-up CT colonography) and the consistency method (polyp coord

65 A radiologist, experienced in CT colonography, and nuclear medicine physician in conse

66 tions of contrast material, scanned by using CT colonography, and subjected to electronic subtraction

67 contrast barium enema, computed tomographic (CT) colonography, and magnetic resonance (MR) colonograp

68 Aortic calcification scores at CT colonography are significantly associated with establ

69 prevalence setting, polyp detection rates at CT colonography are well below those at colonoscopy.

70 ive interpretations at computed tomographic (CT) colonography are due to observer error.

71 ade, the barium enema has been supplanted by CT colonography as the major imaging test in colorectal

72 to assess the behaviour of such polyps with CT colonography assessments.

73 CT colonography at 5- and 10-year screening intervals an

74 CT colonography at 5- and 10-year screening intervals wa

75 r 9152 consecutive adults undergoing initial CT colonography at a tertiary center were reviewed in th

76 ; 250 seniors: mean age, 69 years) underwent CT colonography at an outpatient facility.

77 ; mean age, 59.8 years) undergoing screening CT colonography at two centers in this institutional rev

78 ing routine colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography at two medical centres in the USA.

79 264 (90.6%) FS attendees, 237 of 298 (79.5%) CT colonography attendees, and 182 of 299 (60.9%) CT col

80 relatives was 99.1% among FS and 93.3% among CT colonography attendees.

81 tients were enrolled in a single-institution CT colonography-based screening program (from 2004 to 20

82 Conclusion Serrated lesions are seen at CT colonography-based screening with a nondiminutive pre

83 tive serrated lesions (>/=6 mm) were seen at CT colonography-based screening with a prevalence of 3.1

84 actice, polyps prospectively identified with CT colonography but not confirmed with subsequent nonbli

85 CT colonography by-polyp sensitivity for nonadenomatous

86 mong 373 patients with a positive finding at CT colonography, CAD marked an additional 15 polyps of 6

87 These issues must be resolved before CT colonography can be advocated for generalized screeni

88 CT colonography can effectively depict carpet lesions.

89 ction (CAD) applied to computed tomographic (CT) colonography can help improve sensitivity of polyp d

90 escribed, and combining PET with nonlaxative CT colonography could improve accuracy.

91 intervals (CIs) for the relationship between CT colonography coverage and CRC screening.

92 Similarly, patients with CT colonography coverage had a greater likelihood of bei

93 As a primary colorectal screening tool, CT colonography covered by third-party payers has an acc

94 CT colonography (CTC), when used in CRC screening, effec

95 permission was obtained to use deidentified CT colonography data for this prospective reader study.

96 Ten radiologists each read 25 CT colonography data sets (12 men, 13 women; mean age, 6

97 Twenty CT colonography data sets from 14 men (median age, 61 ye

98 re obtained from all institutions for use of CT colonography data sets in this study.

99 ospective study was performed by using DICOM CT colonography data sets obtained in 20 adult patients.

100 ained from all donor institutions for use of CT colonography data sets.

101 algorithm by using two colonoscopy-confirmed CT colonography data sets.

102 trospectively obtained computed tomographic (CT) colonography data sets by using consensus reading (t

103 Forty-seven computed tomographic (CT) colonography data sets were obtained in 26 men and 1

104 complication rates were obtained by using a CT colonography database and review of medical records.

105 mm or larger adenoma at optical colonoscopy, CT colonography depicted a nonadenomatous polyp that was

106 th colonoscopy serving as the gold standard, CT colonography detected 34%, 32%, 73%, and 63% of the 5

107 Diagnostic studies evaluating CT colonography detection of colorectal cancer were asse

108 ologists reviewed two- and three-dimensional CT colonography displays and graded image quality with a

109 Two-dimensional and 3D CT colonography displays were generated from data obtain

110 -year-old subjects in the United States with CT colonography every 5 or 10 years were compared with t

111 The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test ev

112 wo of 3 experienced readers interpreted each CT colonography examination.

113 s and from data obtained at in vivo clinical CT colonography examinations performed in 10 patients (f

114 videos extracted from computed tomographic (CT) colonography examinations.

115 CT colonography exceeds the performance of nonendoscopic

116 nsitivity of 0.90 (i.e., 90%) indicates that CT colonography failed to detect a lesion measuring 10 m

117 f the 144 lesions were categorized as likely CT colonography false-positive findings (no further acti

118 inded (ie, despite a priori knowledge of the CT colonography findings) OC require additional review b

119 s were directly compared against the initial CT colonography findings.

120 aining informed consent from the readers, 12 CT colonography fly-through examinations that depicted e

121 uding 40% (31 of 78) of those with OC and/or CT colonography follow-up.

122 age risk for colorectal cancer who underwent CT colonography followed by same-day colonoscopy.

123 Three hundred patients underwent CT colonography followed by standard colonoscopy.

124 bserver error), the per-polyp sensitivity of CT colonography for adenomas 10.0 mm or larger increased

125 Retrospective biomechanical CT analysis of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening provides

126 The sensitivity of CT colonography for colorectal cancer was 96.1% (398 of

127 Conclusion Insurance coverage of CT colonography for CRC screening was associated with a

128 The actual specificity of screening CT colonography for extracolonic findings in clinical pr

129 The overall sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography for polyp detection were 90.1% (164 of 1

130 insurance coverage for computed tomographic (CT) colonography for CRC screening.

131 and specificity of computerized tomographic (CT) colonography for detection of colorectal polyps.

132 for the application of computed tomographic (CT) colonography for screening the asymptomatic average-

133 tween actual polyp size and that measured at CT colonography) for 2D transverse, 2D coronal, and 3D e

134 mputed tomographic (CT) virtual colonoscopy (CT colonography) for detecting polyps varies widely in r

135 Although much about CT colonography has already been learned, more remains t

136 In recent years, CT colonography has been validated as an effective tool

137 e ionizing radiation, the radiation dose for CT colonography has decreased substantially, and regular

138 The evaluation of extracolonic structures at CT colonography has definite limitations with regard to

139 Low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography has excellent sensitivity and specificit

140 CT colonography has excellent sensitivity for the detect

141 CT colonography has superior patient acceptability compa

142 The performance of CT colonography has varied widely among published studie

143 logic examination, and computed tomographic (CT) colonography has been studied extensively but the re

144 CT colonography helped detect eight of nine subjects wit

145 Overall, CT colonography helped identify 17 of 22 subjects with p

146 a greater likelihood of being screened with CT colonography (HR, 8.35; 95% CI: 7.11, 9.82) and with

147 olume of more than 180 mm(3) at surveillance CT colonography identified proven advanced neoplasia (in

148 pecial expertise in colonography interpreted CT colonography images of 107 patients (60 with 142 poly

149 Experienced readers interpreted the CT colonography images unassisted and then reviewed all

150 One hundred five patients underwent CT colonography immediately before colonoscopy.

151 CAD software system was applied to screening CT colonography in 1638 women and 1408 men (mean age, 56

152 Large colorectal polyps were identified at CT colonography in 43 (3.9%) of 1110 patients.

153 linicians with regard to the current role of CT colonography in clinical practice.

154 ngs, and the accuracy of test performance of CT colonography in community settings remain uncertain.

155 high rates of false-positive diagnoses with CT colonography in exchange for diagnosis of extracoloni

156 nd acceptability of combined nonlaxative PET/CT colonography in patients at higher risk of colorectal

157 The role of CT colonography in screening asymptomatic patients is co

158 ndings augment published data on the role of CT colonography in screening patients with an average ri

159 Twenty patients with known polyps underwent CT colonography in the supine position.

160 ifferences in sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography in the two age cohorts (age < 65 years a

161 benefit in the detection of 6-9-mm polyps at CT colonography in this cohort.

162 py, endoscopic ultrasound, fecal testing and CT colonography in this setting.

163 uring interpretation of 3D three-dimensional CT colonography in this study occurred in either the dis

164 ptomatic adults undergoing routine screening CT colonography, including about one invasive CRC per 50

165 CT colonography is a safe and effective screening modali

166 ients at average risk for colorectal cancer, CT colonography is a sensitive and specific screening te

167 Noncathartic CT colonography is an effective screening method in firs

168 CT colonography is an exciting and promising technique w

169 In settings with sufficient quality control, CT colonography is as sensitive as colonoscopy for large

170 CT colonography is highly sensitive for colorectal cance

171 CT colonography is performed routinely for some indicati

172 Fortunately, CT colonography is significantly (P <.01) less sensitive

173 ultaneous PET acquisition during nonlaxative CT colonography is technically feasible, is well tolerat

174 Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a noninvasive option in screening fo

175 ed detection (CAD) for computed tomographic (CT) colonography is as effective as optical colonoscopy

176 usion Faster navigation speed at endoluminal CT colonography led to progressive restriction of visual

177 ght-sided lesions were detected at follow-up CT colonography, many of which were flat, serrated lesio

178 olyp identification for computed tomography (CT) colonography Materials and Methods Institutional rev

179 low prevalence of colorectal cancer, primary CT colonography may be more suitable than OC for initial

180 recent studies that show the sensitivity of CT colonography may not be as great when performed and t

181 py were less satisfied than those undergoing CT colonography (median score of 61 and interquartile ra

182 erquartile range [IQR], 2-7) than during PET/CT colonography (median, 5; IQR, 3-7; P = 0.03) and were

183 1 to undergo either colonoscopy (n = 362) or CT colonography (n = 185) received a validated questionn

184 All attendees and a sample of CT colonography nonattendees (n = 299) were contacted fo

185 lonography attendees, and 182 of 299 (60.9%) CT colonography nonattendees responded.

186 CT colonography nonattendees were less likely to be men

187 The primary end point was detection by CT colonography of histologically confirmed large adenom

188 mm or larger were prospectively reported at CT colonography, of which 222 (94.9%; 95% CI: 91.3%, 97.

189 tified with higher confidence at prospective CT colonography (on a 3-point confidence scale: mean, 2.

190 CT colonography-optical colonoscopy concordance and prox

191 t cancer and prevent cancer from developing (CT colonography or colonoscopy).

192 Total CT colonography pain and burden were also lower with alf

193 , magnesium citrate should be considered for CT colonography, particularly in patients at risk for ph

194 CT colonography performance estimates from the trial wer

195 CT colonography performed with multi-detector row CT sig

196 = 72) were depicted at computed tomographic (CT) colonography performed in 36 patients (26 men, 10 wo

197 y-five patients underwent multi-detector row CT colonography prior to colonoscopy.

198 113 patients underwent computed tomographic (CT) colonography prior to colonoscopy.

199 Overall, 19.5% of polyps detected at CT colonography proved to be advanced neoplasia and did

200 Specificity for CT colonography ranged from 95% to 98% and 86% to 95% fo

201 only lesions of 6 mm or larger identified at CT colonography (rectum-to-splenic flexure) and (b) of u

202 he current publicity, many issues concerning CT colonography remain.

203 Radiologists trained in CT colonography reported all lesions measuring 5 mm or m

204 Radiologists certified in CT colonography reported lesions 5 mm in diameter or lar

205 normalities were classified according to the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS).

206 nd have been incorporated into the consensus CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS).

207 Polyp location, CT Colonography Reporting and Data System categorization

208 such as distress), with patients undergoing CT colonography reporting less intense negative affect.

209 ategorized by using the computed tomography (CT) colonography reporting and data system (C-RADS).

210 al masslike findings in the sigmoid colon at CT colonography, representing chronic diverticular disea

211 t examined intra- and extracolonic organs or CT colonography restricted to the colon, across differen

212 were normal in 29 (42.6%) of 68 patients; at CT colonography, results were correctly identified as no

213 However, combined PET/CT colonography review improved per-patient positive pre

214 Characteristics of the CT colonography scanner, including width of collimation,

215 maximum linear sizes of polyps in vivo with CT colonography scans at baseline and surveillance follo

216 on Positive rates for large polyps at repeat CT colonography screening (3.7%) were lower compared wit

217 , 693 men) patients have returned for repeat CT colonography screening (mean interval, 5.7 years +/-

218 -9 mm polyps detected and removed at initial CT colonography screening (without surveillance).

219 scomfort from bowel preparation may increase CT colonography screening acceptability.

220 The demand for CT colonography screening from primary care physicians a

221 t (n = 577) from the University of Wisconsin CT colonography screening program (n = 5176) was underta

222 Results Repeat CT colonography screening was positive for lesions 6 mm

223 2.1%) adults (compared with 14.3% at initial CT colonography screening, P = .29).

224 men; mean age, 58.1 years) underwent primary CT colonography screening.

225 screening after initial negative findings at CT colonography screening.

226 yps detected at repeat computed tomographic (CT) colonography screening after initial negative findin

227 Materials and Methods Among 5640 negative CT colonography screenings (no polyps >/= 6 mm) performe

228 For large neoplasms, mean estimates for CT colonography sensitivity and specificity among the ol

229 For large neoplasms in the younger group, CT colonography sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (9

230 CT colonography sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger wa

231 this feasibility study suggest that CAD for CT colonography significantly improves per-polyp detecti

232 CAD for CT colonography significantly increases per-patient and

233 disparity in results of reported large-scale CT colonography studies in asymptomatic subjects may be

234 ose patients with neoplastic carpet lesions, CT colonography studies were analyzed to determine maxim

235 CT colonography studies were scored according to presenc

236 The odds ratio for a growing polyp at CT colonography surveillance to become an advanced adeno

237 immediate optical colonoscopy or short-term CT colonography surveillance.

238 tical colonoscopy and 46 (60%) of whom chose CT colonography surveillance.

239 al views, both in vitro and in vivo, for the CT colonography system evaluated.

240 Specific CT colonography techniques were cataloged.

241 tion, only a few studies examined the newest CT colonography technology.

242 Sizes measured at CT colonography tend to lie between those measured at op

243 phy and colonoscopy (P =.63) but was less at CT colonography than at DCBE (P <.001).

244 nt rescreening was significantly greater for CT colonography than for either colonoscopy or DCBE.

245 ated with bowel preparation was higher among CT colonography than FS attendees (OR, 2.77; 95% confide

246 iments where they chose between unrestricted CT colonography that examined intra- and extracolonic or

247 , clinically unsuspected cancers detected at CT colonography that were identified at retrospective re

248 ents with left-sided-only polyps detected at CT colonography, the additional yield of complete optica

249 ll patients with positive findings at repeat CT colonography, the findings were directly compared aga

250 masses (>/=3 cm) prospectively identified at CT colonography (there were two nonneoplastic rectal fal

251 procedures were performed on the same day as CT colonography, thereby avoiding the need for repeat bo

252 of endoluminal polyp location at subsequent CT colonography, thereby facilitating detection of known

253 clinical and technical advances have allowed CT colonography to advance slowly from a research tool t

254 All three models predict CT colonography to be more costly and less effective tha

255 ndergoing colorectal cancer screening prefer CT colonography to both colonoscopy and DCBE.

256 Overall, patients preferred CT colonography to colonoscopy (group 1, 72.3% vs 5.1%;

257 ollege of Radiology Imaging Network National CT Colonography Trial provided informed consent, and app

258 CT dose index for combined supine and prone CT colonography was 11.4 mGy.

259 copic referral rate for positive findings at CT colonography was 6.4% (71 of 1110 patients).

260 CT colonography was also performed on 10 control subject

261 standalone CT colonography and combined PET/CT colonography was compared with the reference colonosc

262 As of the time this article was written, CT colonography was competitive as a full structural col

263 CT colonography was followed by conventional colonoscopy

264 The sensitivity of CT colonography was heterogeneous but improved as polyp

265 The major contributor to error at CT colonography was observer perceptual error, while obs

266 CT colonography was performed in 500 men (mean age, 62.5

267 CT colonography was performed in prone and supine positi

268 Low-dose CT colonography was performed with 64-detector CT by usi

269 Multi-detector row CT colonography was performed with patients in prone and

270 robserver agreement with single-detector row CT colonography was sufficient for detection of patients

271 CT colonography was used to identify all eight carcinoma

272 residual fluid during computed tomographic (CT) colonography was evaluated.

273 Computed tomographic (CT) colonography was performed in patients with use of s

274 receiver-operating-characteristic curve for CT colonography were 0.90+/-0.03, 0.86+/-0.02, 0.23+/-0.

275 The effective doses for combined CT colonography were 5.0 mSv and 7.8 mSv for men and wom

276 d positive and negative predictive values of CT colonography were assessed for detecting subjects wit

277 d positive and negative predictive values of CT colonography were calculated, with 95% CIs, by using

278 rformed the following day, and findings from CT colonography were disclosed for each segment.

279 Supine and prone CT colonography were performed after colonic insufflatio

280 One hundred thirty-six subjects undergoing CT colonography were randomized to receive either 20 mg

281 t were 5 mm and larger, images obtained with CT colonography were retrospectively analyzed by one aut

282 Colonic distention and preparation at CT colonography were significantly improved by using sup

283 algorithms for use at computed tomographic (CT) colonography were developed, validated in phantoms,

284 No cancers were missed at CT colonography when both cathartic and tagging agents w

285 9336 adults (mean age, 57.1 years) underwent CT colonography, which yielded 2606 nondiminutive (>/=6

286 h average- and high-risk patients undergoing CT colonography will be found to have clinically importa

287 Polyps were measured at CT colonography with 2D MPR and 3D endoluminal displays

288 ere also independently randomized to undergo CT colonography with an inflatable rectal balloon cathet

289 colonic neoplasia underwent nonlaxative PET/CT colonography with barium fecal tagging within 2 wk of

290 usion Dual-contrast spectral photon-counting CT colonography with iodine-filled lumen and gadolinium-

291 Interobserver variability was high for CT colonography with kappa statistic values ranging from

292 Prone and supine CT colonography with same-day optical colonoscopy was pe

293 ered glucagon and underwent prone and supine CT colonography with single-detector row CT (n = 77) and

294 specificity was observed: The specificity of CT colonography with unassisted and that with CAD-assist

295 The sensitivity of CT colonography with unassisted reading and that with CA

296 etections of polyps at computed tomographic (CT) colonography with computer-aided detection (CAD).

297 CT colonography (with patients in both supine and prone

298 strated adequate cleansing effectiveness for CT colonography, with better tagging and shorter interpr

299 s examined with spiral computed tomographic (CT) colonography, with colonoscopy performed the same da

300 CT colonography without bowel preparation is a safer and