FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Volume 343:162-168 July 20, 2000 Number 3 Next

Abstract PDF Editorial by Podolsky, D. K. Letters Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article PubMed Citation

ABSTRACT

Background and Methods The role of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer is uncertain. At 13 Veterans Affairs medical centers, we performed colonoscopy to determine the prevalence and location of advanced colonic neoplasms and the risk of advanced proximal neoplasia in asymptomatic patients (age range, 50 to 75 years) with or without distal neoplasia. Advanced colonic neoplasia was defined as an adenoma that was 10 mm or more in diameter, a villous adenoma, an adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or invasive cancer. In patients with more than one neoplastic lesion, classification was based on the most advanced lesion.

Results Of 17,732 patients screened for enrollment, 3196 were enrolled; 3121 of the enrolled patients (97.7 percent) underwent complete examination of the colon. The mean age of the patients was 62.9 years, and 96.8 percent were men. Colonoscopic examination showed one or more neoplastic lesions in 37.5 percent of the patients, an adenoma with a diameter of at least 10 mm or a villous adenoma in 7.9 percent, an adenoma with high-grade dysplasia in 1.6 percent, and invasive cancer in 1.0 percent. Of the 1765 patients with no polyps in the portion of the colon that was distal to the splenic flexure, 48 (2.7 percent) had advanced proximal neoplasms. Patients with large adenomas (10 mm) or small adenomas (<10 mm) in the distal colon were more likely to have advanced proximal neoplasia than were patients with no distal adenomas (odds ratios, 3.4 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.8 to 6.5] and 2.6 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.7 to 4.1], respectively). However, 52 percent of the 128 patients with advanced proximal neoplasia had no distal adenomas.

Conclusions Colonoscopic screening can detect advanced colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic adults. Many of these neoplasms would not be detected with sigmoidoscopy.

We conducted a study to determine risk factors for neoplastic lesions with a diameter of 10 mm or more in asymptomatic persons between the ages of 50 and 75 years. Patients enrolled in the study underwent colonoscopic examination, during which all polypoid lesions were removed and evaluated histologically. The purpose of the study was to determine the prevalence and location of colonic neoplasia in asymptomatic patients, the risk of proximal advanced neoplasia in patients with and in those without neoplasia in the distal colon, and the likelihood that advanced proximal neoplasia would be detected on the basis of the presence of an adenoma in the distal colon.

Methods

Patients

The study protocol was approved by a central human-rights committee and by the corresponding committee at each participating center. Patients were enrolled in the study between February 1994 and January 1997. They were recruited from 13 Veterans Affairs medical centers, representing each major region of the United States. Patients were recruited in one of three ways: by random selection from the center's clinic list on the basis of age, by the selection of asymptomatic patients referred for screening sigmoidoscopy, and by advertisement for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer. Oversampling for patients who had one or more first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer was performed in order to have an adequate number of patients with a family history in the sample.

A study nurse asked each patient to complete a brief questionnaire designed to determine eligibility for the study. Patients were excluded if they reported symptoms of lower gastrointestinal tract disease, including rectal bleeding, on more than one occasion in the previous six months, a marked change in bowel habits, or lower abdominal pain that would normally require medical evaluation. Other exclusion criteria were current participation in other studies, a history of disease of the colon (colitis, polyps, or cancer) or colonic surgery, a colonic examination within the previous 10 years (sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or barium enema), a medical condition that could increase the risk associated with colonoscopy (active cardiac or pulmonary disease or other serious disease) or that would preclude a benefit from colonoscopic screening (cancer or any terminal illness), a prosthetic heart valve, anticoagulant therapy, nonmedical problems (psychiatric disorders, lack of transportation, homelessness or lack of support at home, or excessive use of alcohol), and a need for special precautions in performing colonoscopy (i.e., antibiotic prophylaxis). In addition, women of childbearing potential were excluded.

Study Protocol

Eligible persons who provided informed consent completed detailed questionnaires that covered diet, physical activity, drug use, and family history of cancer. A physical examination was performed, and laboratory studies were ordered to evaluate coagulation. The patients received a polyethylene glycol–based electrolyte solution for bowel preparation, along with instructions for use. A complete colonoscopic examination was performed while the patients were under conscious sedation with an intravenous agent. All examinations were performed at the participating centers by the study investigators, who were selected because of their extensive experience with colonoscopy. During the examination, the location and size of all polypoid lesions were noted by study nurses. The size of each polyp was estimated with the use of an open-biopsy forceps, which is 7 mm in diameter. Investigators were required to provide photographic documentation of cecal landmarks and of all polyps and other important lesions.

If the colonoscopic examination was incomplete because of problems with bowel preparation or failure to reach the cecum, the patient was asked to return for a second attempt. If a complete examination was performed within six months after the first attempt, a complete examination was reported, and the combined results of the two examinations were included in the analysis. If the second examination was also incomplete, the results were excluded from the analysis. If the patient underwent surgery within six months after the initial examination and if the resected specimen could be evaluated, then a complete examination was reported, and the results were included in the analysis.

Histologic Evaluation

All retrieved polypoid lesions were sent to local pathology laboratories for histologic evaluation. Slides were sent to a designated expert in pathology at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Hines, Illinois, for an independent, blinded review. When there was agreement between the local pathologist and the pathologist at the coordinating center, a final pathological classification was made. When there was disagreement, the slides were sent to a pathologist at the Veterans Affairs medical center in Minneapolis or in Portland, Oregon. The results of the third review were used to classify the lesion.

Patients were classified on the basis of their most advanced lesion in order to determine the prevalence of pathological features. For example, a patient who had a villous adenoma and a tubular adenoma was classified as having a villous adenoma. The most advanced lesions in the entire colon, distal colon, and proximal colon were determined. Patients were classified separately according to the number of adenomas in the distal colon and the number in the entire colon. The distal colon was defined as the rectum, sigmoid, and descending colon up to but not including the splenic flexure. The proximal colon was defined as the splenic flexure and other, more proximal portions of the colon. The risk of proximal neoplasia associated with distal colonic lesions was determined.

Advanced colonic neoplasia was defined as an adenoma with a diameter of 10 mm or more, a villous adenoma (i.e., at least 25 percent villous), an adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or invasive cancer. Patients with intramucosal carcinoma or carcinoma in situ were classified as having high-grade dysplasia. Cancer was defined as the invasion of malignant cells beyond the muscularis mucosa.

Statistical Analysis

Data-base management and all statistical analyses were performed with SAS software (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.). Rates and proportions were calculated for categorical data, and means and standard errors for continuous data. In addition, standard logistic-regression methods were used to calculate odds ratios for advanced neoplasia, with 95 percent confidence intervals.¹¹ Odds ratios were adjusted for age and family history of cancer in analyses of the risk of advanced neoplasia in the distal and proximal colon.

Results

A total of 17,732 patients were screened for enrollment in the study, and 3196 eligible patients were enrolled. Selected demographic characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 1. The proportion of patients who were recruited by random selection from clinic lists was 48.8 percent; 45.0 percent of the patients had been referred for sigmoidoscopy, and 6.2 percent had responded to the advertisement for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer. The prevalence of a family history of colorectal cancer (one or more affected first-degree relatives) was 13.9 percent in the final study population but 8.2 percent in the overall group of patients who were randomly selected from clinic patients, with the difference due to oversampling. The most frequently reported reasons for exclusion are shown in Table 2. A total of 1463 patients met the criteria for enrollment but declined to participate.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Characteristics of the 3121 Patients.

 

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2. Reasons for Exclusion from the Study.

 
Colonoscopy was completed to the cecum in 3121 of the 3196 patients (97.7 percent). In 14 patients, more than one procedure was required to complete the examination. Patients were classified on the basis of the most advanced lesion found in the colon (Table 3). A total of 1441 patients (46.2 percent) had no polypoid lesions. In the other 1680 patients (53.8 percent), a total of 5218 polyps were removed. In 391 patients (12.5 percent), the most advanced lesions were hyperplastic polyps. In 118 patients (3.8 percent), biopsy of what appeared to be a polyp revealed either normal mucosa or nonpolypoid, miscellaneous findings. In all, 62.5 percent of the patients had no evidence of neoplasia.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 3. Colonoscopic Findings According to the Most Advanced Lesion.

 
A total of 1171 patients had one or more adenomas of any type or invasive cancer (37.5 percent). In 842 patients, the most important finding was a tubular adenoma that was less than 10 mm in diameter. Of these patients, 687 had one or two adenomas, 112 had three or four, and 43 had five or more.

Advanced disease (defined as an adenoma with a diameter of at least 10 mm, or villous features, high-grade dysplasia, or invasive cancer) was present in 329 patients (10.5 percent). In 155 patients (5.0 percent), the most advanced lesions were large tubular adenomas (10 mm). Ninety-three patients (3.0 percent) had adenomas with villous features, 51 (1.6 percent) had adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, and 30 (1.0 percent) had invasive cancer. Among the patients with cancer, the stage was T1N0 in nine patients, T2N0 in six, and T3N0 in seven; six patients had nodal involvement (N1 or N2), and two had metastatic disease.

The most advanced lesions in the distal colon and in the proximal colon were identified separately for each patient (Table 4). In the primary analysis, the distal colon was defined as the rectum and the sigmoid and descending colon. According to this definition, 228 patients (7.3 percent) had advanced disease in the distal colon (i.e., distal to the splenic flexure) and 128 (4.1 percent) had advanced disease in the proximal colon. We also determined the prevalence of advanced disease in the distal colon defined as only the rectum and sigmoid colon. With the more restricted definition, 188 (6.0 percent) had advanced disease in the distal colon, and 169 (5.4 percent) had advanced disease in the proximal colon.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 4. Prevalence and Location of Advanced Neoplasia.

 
The likelihood that advanced proximal neoplasia would be detected on examination of the distal colon was determined by noting the presence or absence of an adenoma in the portion of the colon that was distal to the splenic flexure (Table 4). Among the patients with advanced proximal neoplasia, 48.4 percent (62 of 128) had at least one adenoma in the distal colon, and 14.1 percent (18 of 128) had large adenomas (10 mm in diameter) in the distal colon. With the distal colon defined as the rectum plus the sigmoid colon, only 37.9 percent of the patients with advanced proximal neoplasia (64 of 169) had a distal adenoma.

Among the patients with no adenomas distal to the splenic flexure, 2.7 percent had advanced proximal neoplasia. These patients served as the reference group in an analysis of the risk of advanced proximal neoplasia according to the distal findings. The odds ratios (with 95 percent confidence intervals), adjusted for age and the presence or absence of a family history of colorectal cancer, are shown in Table 5, according to the two definitions of the distal colon. The patients with distal hyperplastic polyps did not have a higher risk of advanced proximal neoplasia than the patients without distal polyps. However, the patients with small or large adenomas in the distal colon had a significantly increased risk of advanced proximal neoplasia: odds ratio for patients with small adenomas, 2.6 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.7 to 4.1); odds ratio for patients with large adenomas, 3.4 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.8 to 6.5). Among patients with small tubular adenomas (<10 mm in diameter) in the distal colon, the presence of one or two adenomas was significantly associated with an elevated risk of proximal advanced neoplasia, but the presence of a larger number of adenomas did not further increase the risk. When the distal colon was defined as the rectum and sigmoid colon, the presence of distal adenomas, whether small or large, was still associated with an increased risk of advanced proximal neoplasia. The odds ratio for proximal advanced neoplasia was higher for the patients with distal villous adenomas (4.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.1 to 10.4) than for the patients with distal tubular adenomas (2.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.7 to 4.0), but the difference was not statistically significant.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 5. Risk of Advanced Proximal Neoplasia According to the Distal Findings.

 
The effect of age on the prevalence of advanced neoplasia was assessed as an independent variable. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia increased from 5.7 percent in the youngest patients (50 to 59 years old) to 13 percent in the oldest patients (70 to 75 years old). There was a trend toward an increased prevalence of advanced proximal neoplasia with age (P<0.001): the prevalence was 2 percent for patients who were 50 to 59 years old, 4.9 percent for those 60 to 69 years old, and 5.9 percent for those 70 to 75 years old.

There were no differences in the rates of advanced neoplasia according to the method used to recruit patients (P=0.32). Patients with a family history of colorectal cancer who were recruited by any of the three methods had a higher age-adjusted risk of advanced neoplasia than patients with no family history (14.3 percent vs. 9.9 percent; odds ratio, 1.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.0).

Ten patients (0.3 percent) had serious complications during or immediately after colonoscopy: six patients had gastrointestinal bleeding that required hospitalization, and one each had a myocardial infarction, a cerebrovascular accident, Fornier's gangrene that required hospitalization, and thrombophlebitis. Three patients died within 30 days after colonoscopy; none of the deaths were directly related to the procedure. There were no perforations.

Discussion

We evaluated the use of colonoscopy as a primary screening procedure in a large number of asymptomatic adults. The combined prevalence of invasive cancer and adenoma with high-grade dysplasia was 2.6 percent. Most of the patients with cancer (73.3 percent) were identified before there was nodal involvement or distal spread and were therefore candidates for curative treatment. These data suggest that screening with colonoscopy in asymptomatic men can detect early and potentially curable advanced neoplasia. In the National Polyp Study,¹² patients who underwent colonoscopy, with the removal of all polyps, had a lower incidence of colorectal cancer during six years of follow-up than did the reference populations. Although our study was not designed to determine whether colonoscopic screening would reduce the rate of mortality from colorectal cancer, the results indicate that many cases of advanced neoplasia would be detected as part of a colonoscopic screening program.

Our findings can be used to determine the yield of a screening examination limited to the distal colon. There has been controversy about the importance of detecting small adenomas (<10 mm in diameter) in the distal colon.^{13,14,15,16,17,18,19} In our study, all patients were asymptomatic and underwent full colonoscopy, irrespective of the findings in the distal colon. Patients with no polyps of any kind in the rectum or sigmoid or descending colon had a risk of advanced proximal neoplasia of 2.7 percent. Among patients with no polyps in the rectum or sigmoid colon, the prevalence of advanced proximal neoplasia was 3.7 percent. The risk of proximal advanced neoplasia increased significantly with age. Patients with distal hyperplastic polyps had a risk of advanced proximal neoplasia that was similar to the risk among patients with no polyps. However, patients with distal adenomas of any size had a higher risk of advanced proximal neoplasia than patients with no distal adenomas.

We determined the prevalence of advanced proximal neoplasia in asymptomatic patients and the likelihood that such patients would have any adenomas in the distal colon (Table 4). When the distal colon was defined as the rectum and the sigmoid and descending colon, 48.4 percent of the patients with advanced proximal neoplasia had adenomas in the distal colon. When the distal colon was defined as the rectum and sigmoid colon, only 37.9 percent of the patients with proximal advanced neoplasia had distal advanced neoplasia. Therefore, the majority of advanced proximal neoplasms would not have been detected if the distal colon had been examined either to the junction of the sigmoid colon and the descending colon or to the splenic flexure.

These data can be interpreted in two ways. Examination of the distal colon to the splenic flexure, followed by full colonoscopy if an adenoma of any size had been found, would have identified the 79.9 percent of patients with advanced neoplasia. However, if the distal colon had been examined only to the junction of the descending colon and the sigmoid colon, then the advanced neoplasia in 31.9 percent of the patients would not have been detected. Failure to detect advanced neoplasia may be more likely in older patients than in younger patients, since the prevalence of advanced proximal disease increases with age.

Our study population included a disproportionately large number of patients who had one or more first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer. These patients had an increased age-adjusted risk of advanced neoplasia, a finding that is consistent with the results of other studies.^20,21,22 These data support the recommendation of an expert panel that colonoscopy be offered to such patients.⁷

Our study has several important limitations. First, the results are applicable only to men. There is considerable evidence that men have higher age-adjusted rates of cancer than women.²³ In addition, a definition of the distal colon that includes the left colon to the splenic flexure may not reflect the actual depth of insertion of a sigmoidoscope. Therefore, we determined the yield of an examination that reached the junction of the sigmoid colon and the descending colon. Our data demonstrate that a more extensive examination of the colon leads to a higher rate of detection of advanced neoplasia. Finally, the effectiveness of colonoscopy depends on the expertise of the endoscopist.²⁴ In our study, all the endoscopists had substantial experience with colonoscopy, as reflected by the high rate of successful cecal intubation. The results of examinations performed by less experienced endoscopists may be different.

We believe that the use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic men for colorectal cancer is feasible and that such screening can identify patients with advanced neoplasia who may benefit from the detection and removal of the lesions. The majority of advanced lesions are distal to the splenic flexure. However, our data show that more than half the cases of advanced proximal neoplasia would not be detected with sigmoidoscopy to the splenic flexure. Patients with distal adenomas of any size have a higher risk of advanced proximal neoplasia than patients with no distal adenomas. In the group of patients in our study who had no distal adenomas, 2.7 percent had advanced proximal lesions, which would not have been detected with sigmoidoscopy alone. It remains to be determined whether a full colonic examination will lead to a greater reduction in the rate of mortality from colorectal cancer than other methods of screening.

Supported by a grant from the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program.

^* Participants in the study group are listed in the Appendix.

Source Information

From the Veterans Affairs medical centers in Portland, Oreg. (D.A.L.); Perry Point, Md. (D.G.W.); Minneapolis (J.H.B.); Denver (D.J.A.); Tucson, Ariz. (H.G.); and Hines, Ill. (G.C.). Other authors were William V. Harford, M.D., Dallas; Dawn Provenzale, M.D., Durham, N.C.; Steve Sontag, M.D., and Tom Schnell, M.D., Hines, Ill.; Donald R. Campbell, M.D., Kansas City, Mo.; Theodore E. Durbin, M.D., Long Beach, Calif.; Doug B. Nelson, M.D., and Steve L. Ewing, M.D., Minneapolis; George Triadafilopoulos, M.D., Palo Alto, Calif.; Francisco C. Ramirez, M.D., Phoenix, Ariz.; John G. Lee, M.D., Judith F. Collins, M.D., M. Brian Fennerty, M.D., Tiina K. Johnston, Ed.M., and Christopher L. Corless, M.D., Ph.D., Portland, Oreg.; Kenneth R. McQuaid, M.D., San Francisco; Richard E. Sampliner, M.D., Thomas G. Morales, M.D., and Ronnie Fass, M.D., Tucson, Ariz.; and Robert Smith, M.D., and Yogesh Maheshwari, M.D., White River Junction, Vt. — all at Veterans Affairs medical centers.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Lieberman at the Division of Gastroenterology, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, P3-GI, P.O. Box 1034, Portland, OR 97207.

References

1. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1365-1371. [Erratum, N Engl J Med 1993;329:672.] [Free Full Text]
2. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MHE, et al. Randomised, controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996;348:1472-1477. [CrossRef][Medline]
3. Kronberg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet 1996;348:1467-1471. [CrossRef][Medline]
4. Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP Jr, Weiss NS. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1992;326:653-657. [Abstract]
5. Newcomb PA, Norfleet RG, Storer BE, Surawicz TS, Marcus PM. Screening sigmoidoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992;84:1572-1575. [Free Full Text]
6. Screening for colorectal cancer. In: Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventative services: report of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1996:89-103.
7. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 1997;112:594-642. [Erratum, Gastroenterology 1997;112:1060, 1998;114:625.] [CrossRef][Medline]
8. Foutch PC, Mai H, Pardy K, DiSario JA, Manne RK, Kerr D. Flexible sigmoidoscopy may be ineffective for secondary prevention of colorectal cancer in asymptomatic, average-risk men. Dig Dis Sci 1991;36:924-928. [CrossRef][Medline]
9. Lieberman DA, Smith FW. Screening for colon malignancy with colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1991;86:946-951. [Medline]
10. Rex DK, Lehman GA, Ulbright TM, et al. Colonic neoplasia in asymptomatic persons with negative fecal occult blood tests: influence of age, gender, and family history. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88:825-831. [Medline]
11. Hosmer DW Jr, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley, 1989.
12. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977-1981. [Free Full Text]
13. Atkin WS, Morson BC, Cuzick J. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas. N Engl J Med 1992;326:658-662. [Abstract]
14. Zarchy TM, Ershoff D. Do characteristics of adenomas on flexible sigmoidoscopy predict advanced lesions on baseline colonoscopy? Gastroenterology 1994;106:1501-1504. [Medline]
15. Grossman S, Milos ML, Tekawa IS, Jewell NP. Colonoscopic screening of persons with suspected risk factors for colon cancer. II. Past history of colorectal neoplasms. Gastroenterology 1989;96:299-306. [Medline]
16. Read TE, Read JD, Butterly LF. Importance of adenomas 5 mm or less in diameter that are detected by sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med 1997;336:8-12. [Free Full Text]
17. Wallace MB, Kemp JA, Trnka YM, Donovan JM, Farraye FA. Is colonoscopy indicated for small adenomas found by screening flexible sigmoidoscopy? Ann Intern Med 1998;129:273-278. [Free Full Text]
18. Schoen RE, Corle D, Cranston L, et al. Is colonoscopy needed for the nonadvanced adenoma found on sigmoidoscopy? The Polyp Prevention Trial. Gastroenterology 1998;115:533-541. [CrossRef][Medline]
19. Levin TR, Palitz A, Grossman S, et al. Predicting advanced proximal colonic neoplasia with screening sigmoidoscopy. JAMA 1999;281:1611-1617. [Free Full Text]
20. St John DJB, McDermott FT, Hopper JL, Debney EA, Johnson WR, Hughes EST. Cancer risk in relatives of patients with common colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:785-790. [Free Full Text]
21. Fuchs CS, Giovannucci EL, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Speizer FE, Willett WC. A prospective study of family history and the risk of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1669-1674. [Free Full Text]
22. Pariente A, Milan C, Lafon J, Faivre J. Colonoscopic screening in first-degree relatives of patients with "sporadic" colorectal cancer: a case-control study. Gastroenterology 1998;115:7-12. [CrossRef][Medline]
23. Ransohoff DF. Colorectal cancer. In: Everhart JE, ed. Digestive diseases in the United States: epidemiology and impact. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 1994:207-24. (NIH publication no. 94-1447.)
24. Rex DK, Rahmani EY, Haseman JH, Lemmel GT, Kaster S, Buckley JS. Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practice. Gastroenterology 1997;112:17-23. [CrossRef][Medline]

The following persons participated in Veterans Affairs Study Group 380: Data Monitoring Board — B. Levin (chairman), C.R. Boland, M. Brown, R. Burt, R.B. D'Agostino, and D.K. Rex; Executive Committee — S. Prindiville (special consultant, Denver), A. Schatzkin (Bethesda, Md.), W. Willett (Boston), and J.F. Collins (Perry Point, Md.); Planning Committee — J. Selby and C. Quesenberry; Veterans Affairs Cooperative Program Office — J.R. Feussner, D. Deykin, and P. Huang.

Study personnel — Dallas: M. Prebis; Denver: S. Frederick and B. Ciminelli; Durham, N.C.: C. Rose, M.J. Timmins, and R. Smith; Hines, Ill.: S. O'Connell; Kansas City, Mo.: R. Corbett; Long Beach, Calif.: S. Van Schoick, C. Nordin, E. Dumitrescu, B. Bagnol, and M. Du; Minneapolis: S. Schwartz; Palo Alto, Calif.: D. Tizer; Phoenix, Ariz.: R. Sanowski and S. Medlin; Portland, Oreg.: M. Garrard; San Francisco: S. Woodford; Tucson, Ariz.: P. Martinez; White River Junction, Vt.: L. Miraldi; study chairman's office — M. Sutton; Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center — B. Calvert, J. Collins, C. Crigler, M. Lee, R. Ortiz, and E. Spence; central laboratory (Tucson, Ariz.): L. Ramsey.

Abstract PDF Editorial by Podolsky, D. K. Letters Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article PubMed Citation

Related Letters:

Screening for Colorectal Cancer
Sherrick R. C., O'Brien K., O'Connell R., O'Connell M., Ault M. J., Mandel S. A., Theuer C. P., Taylor T. H., Anton-Culver H., Lieberman D., Imperiale T. F., Ransohoff D. F., Podolsky D. K.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 2000; 343:1651-1654, Nov 30, 2000. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Blomquist, T., Crawford, E. L., Mullins, D., Yoon, Y., Hernandez, D.-A., Khuder, S., Ruppel, P. L., Peters, E., Oldfield, D. J., Austermiller, B., Anders, J. C., Willey, J. C. (2009). Pattern of Antioxidant and DNA Repair Gene Expression in Normal Airway Epithelium Associated with Lung Cancer Diagnosis. Cancer Res. 69: 8629-8635 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., van Ballegooijen, M., Zauber, A. G., Habbema, J. D. F., Kuipers, E. J. (2009). Effect of Rising Chemotherapy Costs on the Cost Savings of Colorectal Cancer Screening. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 101: 1412-1422 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lieberman, D. A. (2009). Screening for Colorectal Cancer. NEJM 361: 1179-1187 [Full Text]  
• Miles, A., Atkin, W. S, Kralj-Hans, I., Wardle, J. (2009). The psychological impact of being offered surveillance colonoscopy following attendance at colorectal screening using flexible sigmoidoscopy. J Med Screen 16: 124-130 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Liedenbaum, M H, van Rijn, A F, de Vries, A H, Dekker, H M, Thomeer, M, van Marrewijk, C J, Hol, L, Dijkgraaf, M G W, Fockens, P, Bossuyt, P M M, Dekker, E, Stoker, J (2009). Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening. Gut 58: 1242-1249 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bini, E J, Green, B, Poles, M A (2009). Screening colonoscopy for the detection of neoplastic lesions in asymptomatic HIV-infected subjects. Gut 58: 1129-1134 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Robertson, D. J., Burke, C. A., Welch, H. G., Haile, R. W., Sandler, R. S., Greenberg, E. R., Ahnen, D. J., Bresalier, R. S., Rothstein, R. I., Cole, B., Mott, L. A., Baron, J. A. (2009). Using the Results of a Baseline and a Surveillance Colonoscopy to Predict Recurrent Adenomas With High-Risk Characteristics. ANN INTERN MED 151: 103-109 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Pickhardt, P. J., Kim, D. H. (2009). Colorectal Cancer Screening With CT Colonography: Key Concepts Regarding Polyp Prevalence, Size, Histology, Morphology, and Natural History. Am. J. Roentgenol. 193: 40-46 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Warren, J. L., Klabunde, C. N., Mariotto, A. B., Meekins, A., Topor, M., Brown, M. L., Ransohoff, D. F. (2009). Adverse Events After Outpatient Colonoscopy in the Medicare Population. ANN INTERN MED 150: 849-857 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Roy, H. K., Turzhitsky, V., Kim, Y., Goldberg, M. J., Watson, P., Rogers, J. D., Gomes, A. J., Kromine, A., Brand, R. E., Jameel, M., Bogovejic, A., Pradhan, P., Backman, V. (2009). Association between Rectal Optical Signatures and Colonic Neoplasia: Potential Applications for Screening. Cancer Res. 69: 4476-4483 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Pickhardt, P. J., Hassan, C., Laghi, A., Kim, D. H. (2009). CT Colonography to Screen for Colorectal Cancer and Aortic Aneurysm in the Medicare Population: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Am. J. Roentgenol. 192: 1332-1340 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ashbeck, E. L., Jacobs, E. T., Martinez, M. E., Gerner, E. W., Lance, P., Thompson, P. A. (2009). Components of Metabolic Syndrome and Metachronous Colorectal Neoplasia. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 18: 1134-1143 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hassan, C., Pickhardt, P. J., Laghi, A., Zullo, A., Kim, D. H., Iafrate, F., Di Giulio, L., Morini, S. (2009). Impact of Whole-Body CT Screening on the Cost-effectiveness of CT Colonography. Radiology 251: 156-165 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Jacobs, E. T., Ahnen, D. J., Ashbeck, E. L., Baron, J. A., Greenberg, E. R., Lance, P., Lieberman, D. A., McKeown-Eyssen, G., Schatzkin, A., Thompson, P. A., Martinez, M. E. (2009). Association Between Body Mass Index and Colorectal Neoplasia at Follow-Up Colonoscopy: A Pooling Study. Am J Epidemiol 169: 657-666 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Graser, A, Stieber, P, Nagel, D, Schafer, C, Horst, D, Becker, C R, Nikolaou, K, Lottes, A, Geisbusch, S, Kramer, H, Wagner, A C, Diepolder, H, Schirra, J, Roth, H J, Seidel, D, Goke, B, Reiser, M F, Kolligs, F T (2009). Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut 58: 241-248 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Wilkins, T., LeClair, B., Smolkin, M., Davies, K., Thomas, A., Taylor, M. L., Strayer, S. (2009). Screening Colonoscopies by Primary Care Physicians: A Meta-Analysis. Ann Fam Med 7: 56-62 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Whitlock, E. P., Lin, J. S., Liles, E., Beil, T. L., Fu, R. (2008). Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Targeted, Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. ANN INTERN MED 149: 638-658 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kaltenbach, T, Friedland, S, Soetikno, R (2008). A randomised tandem colonoscopy trial of narrow band imaging versus white light examination to compare neoplasia miss rates. Gut 57: 1406-1412 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lieberman, D. A., Holub, J. L., Moravec, M. D., Eisen, G. M., Peters, D., Morris, C. D. (2008). Prevalence of Colon Polyps Detected by Colonoscopy Screening in Asymptomatic Black and White Patients. JAMA 300: 1417-1422 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• An, S., Lee, K. H., Kim, Y. H., Park, S. H., Kim, H. Y., Kim, S. H., Kim, N. (2008). Screening CT Colonography in an Asymptomatic Average-Risk Asian Population: A 2-Year Experience in a Single Institution. Am. J. Roentgenol. 191: W100-W106 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Sung, J J Y, Lau, J Y W, Young, G P, Sano, Y, Chiu, H M, Byeon, J S, Yeoh, K G, Goh, K L, Sollano, J, Rerknimitr, R, Matsuda, T, Wu, K C, Ng, S, Leung, S Y, Makharia, G, Chong, V H, Ho, K Y, Brooks, D, Lieberman, D A, Chan, F K L, for The Asia Pacific Working Group on Colorectal C, (2008). Asia Pacific consensus recommendations for colorectal cancer screening. Gut 57: 1166-1176 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• BIANCHI, L. K., BURKE, C. A. (2008). Understanding current guidelines for colorectal cancer screening: A case-based approach. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 75: 441-448 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Levin, B., Lieberman, D. A., McFarland, B., Smith, R. A., Brooks, D., Andrews, K. S., Dash, C., Giardiello, F. M., Glick, S., Levin, T. R., Pickhardt, P., Rex, D. K., Thorson, A., Winawer, S. J., for the American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer, (2008). Screening and Surveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Adenomatous Polyps, 2008: A Joint Guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 58: 130-160 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hassan, C., Pickhardt, P., Laghi, A., Kim, D., Zullo, A., Iafrate, F., Di Giulio, L., Morini, S. (2008). Computed Tomographic Colonography to Screen for Colorectal Cancer, Extracolonic Cancer, and Aortic Aneurysm: Model Simulation With Cost-effectiveness Analysis. Arch Intern Med 168: 696-705 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Rex, D. K., Imperiale, T. F., Regula, J., Polkowski, M., Glaser, D. S., Butterly, L. F., Pohl, H., Kim, D. H., Pickhardt, P. J. (2008). CT Colonography versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Advanced Neoplasia. NEJM 358: 88-90 [Full Text]  
• Iglar, K., Katyal, S., Matthew, R., Dubey, V. (2008). Complete health checkup for adults: Update on the Preventive Care Checklist Form(C). cfp 54: 84-88 [Full Text]  
• 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. NEJM 357: 1403-1412 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Knox, L., Hahn, R. G., Lane, C. (2007). A Comparison of Unsedated Colonoscopy and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in the Family Medicine Setting: An LA Net Study. J Am Board Fam Med 20: 444-450 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kuehle, C. A, Langhorst, J., Ladd, S. C, Zoepf, T., Nuefer, M., Grabellus, F., Barkhausen, J., Gerken, G., Lauenstein, T. C (2007). Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing: a prospective cross sectional study in a screening population. Gut 56: 1079-1085 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• O'Dwyer, P. J., Eckhardt, S. G., Haller, D. G., Tepper, J., Ahnen, D., Hamilton, S., Benson, A. B. III, Rothenberg, M., Petrelli, N., Lenz, H.-J., Diasio, R., DuBois, R., Sargent, D., Sloan, J., Johnson, C. D., Comis, R. L., O'Connell, M. J. (2007). Priorities in Colorectal Cancer Research: Recommendations From the Gastrointestinal Scientific Leadership Council of the Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups. JCO 25: 2313-2321 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Koornstra, J J, Wesseling, J, de Jong, A E, Vasen, H F A, Kleibeuker, J H, Haagsma, E B (2007). Increased risk of colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic liver-transplant recipients. Gut 56: 892-893 [Full Text]  
• Bach, P. B., Jett, J. R., Pastorino, U., Tockman, M. S., Swensen, S. J., Begg, C. B. (2007). Computed Tomography Screening and Lung Cancer Outcomes. JAMA 297: 953-961 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Brenner, H., Chang-Claude, J., Seiler, C. M., Sturmer, T., Hoffmeister, M. (2007). Potential for Colorectal Cancer Prevention of Sigmoidoscopy Versus Colonoscopy: Population-Based Case Control Study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 16: 494-499 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Imperiale, T. F. (2007). Quantitative Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Tests: Is It Time to Go Back to the Future?. ANN INTERN MED 146: 309-311 [Full Text]  
• Levin, T. R., Zhao, W., Conell, C., Seeff, L. C., Manninen, D. L., Shapiro, J. A., Schulman, J. (2006). Complications of Colonoscopy in an Integrated Health Care Delivery System. ANN INTERN MED 145: 880-886 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• El-Serag, H. B., Petersen, L., Hampel, H., Richardson, P., Cooper, G. (2006). The use of screening colonoscopy for patients cared for by the department of veterans affairs.. Arch Intern Med 166: 2202-2208 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gross, C. P., McAvay, G. J., Krumholz, H. M., Paltiel, A. D., Bhasin, D., Tinetti, M. E. (2006). The effect of age and chronic illness on life expectancy after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer: implications for screening.. ANN INTERN MED 145: 646-653 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Boolchand, V., Olds, G., Singh, J., Singh, P., Chak, A., Cooper, G. S. (2006). Colorectal screening after polypectomy: a national survey study of primary care physicians.. ANN INTERN MED 145: 654-659 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Regula, J., Rupinski, M., Kraszewska, E., Polkowski, M., Pachlewski, J., Orlowska, J., Nowacki, M. P., Butruk, E. (2006). Colonoscopy in Colorectal-Cancer Screening for Detection of Advanced Neoplasia. NEJM 355: 1863-1872 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• (2006). Population screening for colorectal cancer. DTB 44: 65-68 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kung, J. W., Levine, M. S., Glick, S. N., Lakhani, P., Rubesin, S. E., Laufer, I. (2006). Colorectal Cancer: Screening Double-Contrast Barium Enema Examination in Average-Risk Adults Older Than 50 Years. Radiology 240: 725-735 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bini, E. J., Park, J., Francois, F. (2006). Use of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy to Screen for Colorectal Cancer in HIV-Infected Patients 50 Years of Age and Older.. Arch Intern Med 166: 1626-1631 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bleiberg, H., Autier, P., Huet, F., Schrauwen, A. M., Staquet, E., Delaunoit, T., Hendlisz, A., Wyns, C., Panzer, J. M., Caucheteur, B., Eisendrath, P., Grivegnee, A. (2006). Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using sigmoidoscopy followed by colonoscopy: a feasibility and efficacy study on a cancer institute based population. Ann Oncol 17: 1328-1332 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ferrucci, J. T. (2006). Double-contrast barium enema: use in practice and implications for CT colonography.. Am. J. Roentgenol. 187: 170-173 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Singh, H., Turner, D., Xue, L., Targownik, L. E., Bernstein, C. N. (2006). Risk of developing colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy examination: evidence for a 10-year interval between colonoscopies.. JAMA 295: 2366-2373 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Winawer, S. J., Zauber, A. G., Fletcher, R. H., Stillman, J. S., O'Brien, M. J., Levin, B., Smith, R. A., Lieberman, D. A., Burt, R. W., Levin, T. R., Bond, J. H., Brooks, D., Byers, T., Hyman, N., Kirk, L., Thorson, A., Simmang, C., Johnson, D., Rex, D. K. (2006). Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance after Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society.. CA Cancer J Clin 56: 143-159 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Rex, D. K., Kahi, C. J., Levin, B., Smith, R. A., Bond, J. H., Brooks, D., Burt, R. W., Byers, T., Fletcher, R. H., Hyman, N., Johnson, D., Kirk, L., Lieberman, D. A., Levin, T. R., O'Brien, M. J., Simmang, C., Thorson, A. G., Winawer, S. J. (2006). Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance after Cancer Resection: A Consensus Update by the American Cancer Society and US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.. CA Cancer J Clin 56: 160-167 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Thompson, W. M., Foster, W. L., Paulson, E. K., Niedzwiecki, D., Low, V. H. S., Fulford, L. B., Broomer, B. W., Sanders, L., Rockey, D. C. (2006). Causes of Errors in Polyp Detection at Air-Contrast Barium Enema Examination. Radiology 239: 139-148 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Taylor, S A, Halligan, S, Slater, A, Burling, D, Marshall, M, I Bartram, C (2006). Comparison of Radiologists' confidence in excluding significant colorectal neoplasia with multidetector-row CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema.. Br. J. Radiol. 79: 208-214 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Roy, H. K., Kim, Y. L., Liu, Y., Wali, R. K., Goldberg, M. J., Turzhitsky, V., Horwitz, J., Backman, V. (2006). Risk Stratification of Colon Carcinogenesis through Enhanced Backscattering Spectroscopy Analysis of the Uninvolved Colonic Mucosa. Clin. Cancer Res. 12: 961-968 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Iannaccone, R., Catalano, C., Mangiapane, F., Murakami, T., Lamazza, A., Fiori, E., Schillaci, A., Marin, D., Nofroni, I., Hori, M., Passariello, R. (2005). Colorectal Polyps: Detection with Low-Dose Multi-Detector Row Helical CT Colonography versus Two Sequential Colonoscopies. Radiology 237: 927-937 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Macari, M., Bini, E. J. (2005). CT Colonography: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?. Radiology 237: 819-833 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Olson, R. P., Stone, A., Lubarsky, D. (2005). The Prevalence and Significance of Low Preoperative Hemoglobin in ASA 1 or 2 Outpatient Surgery Candidates. Anesth. Analg. 101: 1337-1340 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Klabunde, C., Breen, N., Meissner, H., Subramanian, S. (2005). Use of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 14: 2279-2280 [Full Text]  
• Levin, T. R., Atkin, W. S., Thomas, C. M., Schoenfeld, P., Lieberman, D. (2005). Colonoscopic Screening of Women for Colorectal Neoplasia. NEJM 353: 844-846 [Full Text]  
• Eisen, G. M., Weinberg, D. S. (2005). Narrative Review: Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Patients with a First-Degree Relative with Colonic Neoplasia. ANN INTERN MED 143: 190-198 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gutman, F., Alberini, J.-L., Wartski, M., Vilain, D., Le Stanc, E., Sarandi, F., Corone, C., Tainturier, C., Pecking, A. P. (2005). Incidental Colonic Focal Lesions Detected by FDG PET/CT. Am. J. Roentgenol. 185: 495-500 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Levin, T R, Farraye, F A, Schoen, R E, Hoff, G, Atkin, W, Bond, J H, Winawer, S, Burt, R W, Johnson, D A, Kirk, L M, Litin, S C, Rex, D K (2005). Quality in the technical performance of screening flexible sigmoidoscopy: recommendations of an international multi-society task group. Gut 54: 807-813 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Schoenfeld, P., Cash, B., Flood, A., Dobhan, R., Eastone, J., Coyle, W., Kikendall, J. W., Kim, H. M., Weiss, D. G., Emory, T., Schatzkin, A., Lieberman, D., the CONCeRN Study Investigators, (2005). Colonoscopic Screening of Average-Risk Women for Colorectal Neoplasia. NEJM 352: 2061-2068 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lin, O. S., Gerson, L. B., Soon, M.-S., Schembre, D. B., Kozarek, R. A. (2005). Risk of Proximal Colon Neoplasia With Distal Hyperplastic Polyps: A Meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 165: 382-390 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Subramanian, S., Amonkar, M. M., Hunt, T. L. (2005). Use of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Evidence from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 14: 409-416 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Collins, J. F., Lieberman, D. A., Durbin, T. E., Weiss, D. G., and the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study #380 Gr, (2005). Accuracy of Screening for Fecal Occult Blood on a Single Stool Sample Obtained by Digital Rectal Examination: A Comparison with Recommended Sampling Practice. ANN INTERN MED 142: 81-85 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hawk, E. T., Levin, B. (2005). Colorectal Cancer Prevention. JCO 23: 378-391 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kapoor, N, Bassi, A, Sturgess, R, Bodger, K (2005). Predictive value of alarm features in a rapid access upper gastrointestinal cancer service. Gut 54: 40-45 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Terzolo, M., Reimondo, G., Gasperi, M., Cozzi, R., Pivonello, R., Vitale, G., Scillitani, A., Attanasio, R., Cecconi, E., Daffara, F., Gaia, E., Martino, E., Lombardi, G., Angeli, A., Colao, A. (2005). Colonoscopic Screening and Follow-Up in Patients with Acromegaly: A Multicenter Study in Italy. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 90: 84-90 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Xiong, T, Richardson, M, Woodroffe, R, Halligan, S, Morton, D, Lilford, R J (2005). Incidental lesions found on CT colonography: their nature and frequency. Br. J. Radiol. 78: 22-29 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Imperiale, T. F., Ransohoff, D. F., Itzkowitz, S. H., Turnbull, B. A., Ross, M. E., the Colorectal Cancer Study Group, (2004). Fecal DNA versus Fecal Occult Blood for Colorectal-Cancer Screening in an Average-Risk Population. NEJM 351: 2704-2714 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Fearnhead, N. S., Wilding, J. L., Winney, B., Tonks, S., Bartlett, S., Bicknell, D. C., Tomlinson, I. P. M., Mortensen, N. J. McC., Bodmer, W. F. (2004). Multiple rare variants in different genes account for multifactorial inherited susceptibility to colorectal adenomas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 15992-15997 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Zapka, J. G., Lemon, S. C., Puleo, E., Estabrook, B., Luckmann, R., Erban, S. (2004). Patient Education for Colon Cancer Screening: A Randomized Trial of a Video Mailed before a Physical Examination. ANN INTERN MED 141: 683-692 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kamel, E. M., Thumshirn, M., Truninger, K., Schiesser, M., Fried, M., Padberg, B., Schneiter, D., Stoeckli, S. J., von Schulthess, G. K., Stumpe, K. D.M. (2004). Significance of Incidental 18F-FDG Accumulations in the Gastrointestinal Tract in PET/CT: Correlation with Endoscopic and Histopathologic Results. JNM 45: 1804-1810 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Chao, A., Connell, C. J., Cokkinides, V., Jacobs, E. J., Calle, E. E., Thun, M. J. (2004). Underuse of Screening Sigmoidoscopy and Colonoscopy in a Large Cohort of US Adults. AJPH 94: 1775-1781 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hoff, G, Grotmol, T, Thiis-Evensen, E, Bretthauer, M, Gondal, G, Vatn, M H (2004). Testing for faecal calprotectin (PhiCal) in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: comparison with an immunochemical test for occult blood (FlexSure OBT). Gut 53: 1329-1333 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Pickhardt, P. J., Choi, J. R., Hwang, I., Schindler, W. R. (2004). Nonadenomatous Polyps at CT Colonography: Prevalence, Size Distribution, and Detection Rates. Radiology 232: 784-790 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Mysliwiec, P. A., Brown, M. L., Klabunde, C. N., Ransohoff, D. F. (2004). Are Physicians Doing Too Much Colonoscopy? A National Survey of Colorectal Surveillance after Polypectomy. ANN INTERN MED 141: 264-271 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Cotton, P. B., Durkalski, V. L., Pineau, B. C., Palesch, Y. Y., Mauldin, P. D., Hoffman, B., Vining, D. J., Small, W. C., Affronti, J., Rex, D., Kopecky, K. K., Ackerman, S., Burdick, J. S., Brewington, C., Turner, M. A., Zfass, A., Wright, A. R., Iyer, R. B., Lynch, P., Sivak, M. V., Butler, H. (2004). Computed Tomographic Colonography (Virtual Colonoscopy): A Multicenter Comparison With Standard Colonoscopy for Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia. JAMA 291: 1713-1719 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ransohoff, D. F. (2004). Virtual Colonoscopy--What It Can Do vs What It Will Do. JAMA 291: 1772-1774 [Full Text]  
• Yamaji, Y, Mitsushima, T, Ikuma, H, Watabe, H, Okamoto, M, Kawabe, T, Wada, R, Doi, H, Omata, M (2004). Incidence and recurrence rates of colorectal adenomas estimated by annually repeated colonoscopies on asymptomatic Japanese. Gut 53: 568-572 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Takahashi, P. Y., Okhravi, H. R., Lim, L. S., Kasten, M. J. (2004). Preventive Health Care in the Elderly Population: A Guide for Practicing Physicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 79: 416-427 [Abstract]  
• Macari, M., Bini, E. J., Jacobs, S. L., Naik, S., Lui, Y. W., Milano, A., Rajapaksa, R., Megibow, A. J., Babb, J. (2004). Colorectal Polyps and Cancers in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Patients: Evaluation with CT Colonography. Radiology 230: 629-636 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Colao, A., Ferone, D., Marzullo, P., Lombardi, G. (2004). Systemic Complications of Acromegaly: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, and Management. Endocr. Rev. 25: 102-152 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Palmer, K, Morris, A I (2004). A snapshot of colonoscopy practice in England: stimulus for improvement. Gut 53: 163-165 [Full Text]  
• Imperiale, T. F., Wagner, D. R., Lin, C. Y., Larkin, G. N., Rogge, J. D., Ransohoff, D. F. (2003). Using Risk for Advanced Proximal Colonic Neoplasia To Tailor Endoscopic Screening for Colorectal Cancer. ANN INTERN MED 139: 959-965 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lieberman, D. A., Prindiville, S., Weiss, D. G., Willett, W. (2003). Risk Factors for Advanced Colonic Neoplasia and Hyperplastic Polyps in Asymptomatic Individuals. JAMA 290: 2959-2967 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Pickhardt, P. J., Choi, J. R., Hwang, I., Butler, J. A., Puckett, M. L., Hildebrandt, H. A., Wong, R. K., Nugent, P. A., Mysliwiec, P. A., Schindler, W. R. (2003). Computed Tomographic Virtual Colonoscopy to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia in Asymptomatic Adults. NEJM 349: 2191-2200 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Herfarth, H, Schreyer, A G (2003). The virtuosity of virtuality or how real is virtual colonography. Gut 52: 1662-1664 [Full Text]  
• Ramakrishnan, K., Scheid, D. C. (2003). Predictors of Incomplete Flexible Sigmoidoscopy. J Am Board Fam Med 16: 478-484 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Sonnenberg, A., Lieberman, D. (2003). Optimal Intervals and Techniques for Screening Sigmoidoscopy. JAMA 290: 2122-2123 [Full Text]