The DOI matches its Crossref record.
CT Colonography versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Advanced Neoplasia
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Convolutional Neural Networks for Medical Image Analysis: Full Training or Fine Tuning?
Tajbakhsh, N., Shin, J. Y., Gurudu, S. R., Hurst, R. T., Kendall, C. B., Gotway, M. B., & Liang, J. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2016.2535302 · Cited by 3,277
Quality indicators for colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Schoenfeld, P. S., Cohen, J., Pike, I. M., Adler, D. G., Fennerty, M. B., Lieb, J. G., Park, W. G., Rizk, M. K., Sawhney, M. S., et al. (2015) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058 · Cited by 1,764
Lin, J. S., Bowles, E. J. A., Williams, S. B., & Morrison, C. C. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0562 · Cited by 1,082
Plasma microRNAs are promising novel biomarkers for early detection of colorectal cancer
Huang, Z., Huang, D., Ni, S., Peng, Z., Sheng, W., & Du, X. (2010) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.25007 · Cited by 964
Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology
HALL, E. J., & BRENNER, D. J. (2008) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr/01948454 · Cited by 915
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
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- 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.