Helen Fenlon

Science, medicine, and the future: Virtual colonoscopy

Computerized tomographic colonography (CT colonography) is a new, non-invasive technique that has been developed over the last few years; it looks at the large bowel in detail. In this chapter we look at how the examination is performed and we consider how the images are displayed. We describe the normal features of the colon, as seen using this technique, as well as the features of common pathological conditions. We will discuss screening for colorectal cancer and the performance of CT colonography; we compare the latter with other procedures currently employed in the screening and diagnosis of colorectal pathology. We consider the difficulties in interpreting these CT colonographic images and look at ways to overcome such difficulties. Finally we discuss future developments of this exciting, new technique.

Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography colonography in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES The European Code Against Cancer recommends individuals aged ≥ 50 should participate in colorectal cancer screening. CT-colonography (CTC) is one of several screening tests available. We systematically reviewed evidence on, and identified key factors influencing, cost-effectiveness of CTC screening. METHODS PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane library were searched for cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of CTC-based screening, published in English, January 1999 to July 2010. Data was abstracted on setting, model type and horizon, screening scenario(s), comparator(s), participants, uptake, CTC performance and cost, effectiveness, ICERs, and whether extra-colonic findings and medical complications were considered. RESULTS Sixteen studies were identified from the United States (n = 11), Canada (n = 2), and France, Italy, and the United Kingdom (1 each). Markov state-transition (n = 14) or microsimulation (n = 2) models were used. Eleven considered direct medical costs only; five included indirect costs. Fourteen compared CTC with no screening; fourteen compared CTC with colonoscopy-based screening; fewer compared CTC with sigmoidoscopy (8) or fecal tests (4). Outcomes assessed were life-years gained/saved (13), QALYs (2), or both (1). Three considered extra-colonic findings; seven considered complications. CTC appeared cost-effective versus no screening and, in general, flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood testing. Results were mixed comparing CTC to colonoscopy. Parameters most influencing cost-effectiveness included: CTC costs, screening uptake, threshold for polyp referral, and extra-colonic findings. CONCLUSION Evidence on cost-effectiveness of CTC screening is heterogeneous, due largely to between-study differences in comparators and parameter values. Future studies should: compare CTC with currently favored tests, especially fecal immunochemical tests; consider extra-colonic findings; and conduct comprehensive sensitivity analyses.

Impact of full field digital mammography on the classification and mammographic characteristics of interval breast cancers

OBJECTIVE Full field digital mammography (FFDM) is increasingly replacing screen film mammography (SFM) in breast screening programs. Interval breast cancers are an issue in all screening programs and the purpose of our study is to assess the impact of FFDM on the classification of interval breast cancers at independent blind review and to compare the mammographic features of interval cancers at FFDM and SFM. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study included 138 cases of interval breast cancer, 76 following an FFDM screening examination and 62 following screening with SFM. The prior screening mammogram was assessed by each of five consultant breast radiologists who were blinded to the site of subsequent cancer. Subsequent review of the diagnostic mammogram was performed and cases were classified as missed, minimal signs, occult or true interval. Mammographic features of the interval cancer at diagnosis and any abnormality identified on the prior screening mammogram were recorded. RESULTS The percentages of cancers classified as missed at FFDM and SFM did not differ significantly, 10.5% (8 of 76) at FFDM and 8.1% (5 of 62) at SFM (p=.77). There were significantly less interval cancers presenting as microcalcifications (alone or in association with another abnormality) following screening with FFDM, 16% (12 of 76) than following a SFM examination, 32% (20 of 62) (p=.02). CONCLUSION Interval breast cancers continue to pose a problem at FFDM. The switch to FFDM has changed the mammographic presentation of interval breast cancer, with less interval cancers presenting in association with microcalcifications.