[A prospective comparison of video colonoscopy and CT colonography in asymptomatic patients screened for colorectal cancer]

Comparison of the accuracy of CT colonography and colonoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer

AIM

The available evidence was reviewed to compare the effectiveness of CT colonography with that of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHOD

An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, from inception to July 2009. Studies were included if investigations used CT colonography for CRC screening in asymptomatic populations. Studies were excluded if investigations were conducted for the diagnosis of CRC or in elderly, high-risk or symptomatic populations.

RESULTS

Of the 213 references identified, nine studies were included. The specificity of CT colonography in screening for CRC was high, although it decreased with decreasing diameter of polyp to be detected. The sensitivity of CT colonography for the detection of polyps < 6 mm in diameter was low and heterogeneous, although it was higher for polyps > 10 mm. The main factors contributing to a greater sensitivity of CT colonography were the inclusion of only populations with an average CRC risk and colonic insufflation with CO2 . The incidence of adverse effects was very low for both tests.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography has high specificity but heterogeneous sensitivity, although in most cases it is not as sensitive or specific as conventional colonoscopy. CT colonography could therefore be useful as a screening test for populations with an average risk of CRC.

Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy-based screening on incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded varying estimates of the benefit of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to more precisely estimate the effect of FS-based screening on the incidence and mortality of CRC by performing a meta-analysis of published RCTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Medline and Embase databases were searched for eligible articles published between 1966 and 28 May 2012. After screening 3,319 citations and 29 potentially relevant articles, two reviewers identified five RCTs evaluating the effect of FS screening on the incidence and mortality of CRC. The reviewers independently extracted relevant data; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The quality of included studies was assessed using criteria set out by the Evidence-Based Gastroenterology Steering Group. Random effects meta-analysis was performed. The five RCTs meeting eligibility criteria were determined to be of high methodologic quality and enrolled 416,159 total subjects. Four European studies compared FS to no screening and one study from the United States compared FS to usual care. By intention to treat analysis, FS-based screening was associated with an 18% relative risk reduction in the incidence of CRC (0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.91, p<0.001, number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent one case of CRC = 361), a 33% reduction in the incidence of left-sided CRC (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.76, p<0.001, NNS = 332), and a 28% reduction in the mortality of CRC (relative risk [RR] 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.80, p<0.001, NNS = 850). The efficacy estimate, the amount of benefit for those who actually adhered to the recommended treatment, suggested that FS screening reduced CRC incidence by 32% (p<0.001), and CRC-related mortality by 50% (p<0.001). Limitations of this meta-analysis include heterogeneity in the design of the included trials, absence of studies from Africa, Asia, or South America, and lack of studies comparing FS with colonoscopy or stool-based testing.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrates that FS-based screening significantly reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer in average-risk patients.