Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 706

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

CT Colonography versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Advanced Neoplasia

Kim, David H., Pickhardt, Perry J., Taylor, Andrew J., Leung, Winifred K., Winter, Thomas C., Hinshaw, J. Louis, Gopal, Deepak V., Reichelderfer, Mark, Hsu, Richard H., Pfau, Patrick R.·2007·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Advanced neoplasia represents the primary target for colorectal-cancer screening and prevention. We compared the diagnostic yield from parallel computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) screening programs. METHODS: We compared primary CTC screening in 3120 consecutive adults (mean [+/-SD] age, 57.0+/-7.2 years) with primary OC screening in 3163 consecutive adults (mean age, 58.1+/-7.8 years). The main outcome measures included the detection of advanced neoplasia (advanced adenomas and carcinomas) and the total number of harvested polyps. Referral for polypectomy during OC was offered for all CTC-detected polyps of at least 6 mm in size. Patients with one or two small polyps (6 to 9 mm) also were offered the option of CTC surveillance. During primary OC, nearly all detected polyps were removed, regardless of size, according to established practice guidelines. RESULTS: During CTC and OC screening, 123 and 121 advanced neoplasms were found, including 14 and 4 invasive cancers, respectively. The referral rate for OC in the primary CTC screening group was 7.9% (246 of 3120 patients). Advanced neoplasia was confirmed in 100 of the 3120 patients in the CTC group (3.2%) and in 107 of the 3163 patients in the OC group (3.4%), not including 158 patients with 193 unresected CTC-detected polyps of 6 to 9 mm who were undergoing surveillance. The total numbers of polyps removed in the CTC and OC groups were 561 and 2434, respectively. There were seven colonic perforations in the OC group and none in the CTC group. CONCLUSIONS: Primary CTC and OC screening strategies resulted in similar detection rates for advanced neoplasia, although the numbers of polypectomies and complications were considerably smaller in the CTC group. These findings support the use of CTC as a primary screening test before therapeutic OC.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa070543

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 706

Metadata

Authors
Kim, D. H., Pickhardt, P. J., Taylor, A. J., Leung, W. K., Winter, T. C., Hinshaw, J. L., Gopal, D. V., Reichelderfer, M., Hsu, R. H., & Pfau, P. R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2007-10-04
Volume
357
Issue
14
Pages
1403-1412
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2118772243
Cited by
706
References
0
FWCI
40.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: CT Colonography versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Advanced Neoplasia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa070543
The paper
Kim, D. H., Pickhardt, P. J., Taylor, A. J., Leung, W. K., Winter, T. C., Hinshaw, J. L., Gopal, D. V., Reichelderfer, M., Hsu, R. H., & Pfau, P. R. (2007). CT Colonography versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Advanced Neoplasia. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa070543

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.