Detection of extracolonic pathologic findings with CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment of perceived benefits versus harms.

PURPOSE To determine the maximum rate of false-positive diagnoses that patients and health care professionals were willing to accept in exchange for detection of extracolonic malignancy by using computed tomographic (CT) colonography for colorectal cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS After obtaining ethical approval and informed consent, 52 patients and 50 health care professionals undertook two discrete choice experiments where they chose between unrestricted CT colonography that examined intra- and extracolonic organs or CT colonography restricted to the colon, across different scenarios. The first experiment detected one extracolonic malignancy per 600 cases with a false-positive rate varying across scenarios from 0% to 99.8%. One experiment examined radiologic follow-up generated by false-positive diagnoses while the other examined invasive follow-up. Intracolonic performance was identical for both tests. The median tipping point (maximum acceptable false-positive rate for extracolonic findings) was calculated overall and for both groups by bootstrap analysis. RESULTS The median tipping point for radiologic follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate greater than 99.8% (interquartile ratio [IQR], 10 to >99.8%). Participants would tolerate at least a 99.8% rate of unnecessary radiologic tests to detect an additional extracolonic malignancy. The median tipping-point for invasive follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate of 10% (IQR, 2 to >99.8%). Tipping points were significantly higher for patients than for health care professionals for both experiments (>99.8 vs 40% for radiologic follow-up and >99.8 vs 5% for invasive follow-up, both P < .001). CONCLUSION Patients and health care professionals are willing to tolerate high rates of false-positive diagnoses with CT colonography in exchange for diagnosis of extracolonic malignancy. The actual specificity of screening CT colonography for extracolonic findings in clinical practice is likely to be highly acceptable to both patients and health care professionals. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

[1]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[2]  C. von Wagner,et al.  Patients' & Healthcare Professionals' Values Regarding True- & False-Positive Diagnosis when Colorectal Cancer Screening by CT Colonography: Discrete Choice Experiment , 2013, PloS one.

[3]  C. Rutter,et al.  Suspected extracolonic neoplasms detected on CT colonography: literature review and possible outcomes. , 2013, Academic radiology.

[4]  D. Howlett,et al.  Findings of the UK national audit evaluating image-guided or image-assisted liver biopsy. Part II. Minor and major complications and procedure-related mortality. , 2013, Radiology.

[5]  M. Beland,et al.  Incidental clinically important extraurinary findings at MDCT urography for hematuria evaluation: prevalence in 1209 consecutive examinations. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  C. von Wagner,et al.  Public perceptions and preferences for CT colonography or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. , 2012, Patient education and counseling.

[7]  A. Edwards,et al.  Communicating risk , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Steve Halligan,et al.  Patient acceptability and psychologic consequences of CT colonography compared with those of colonoscopy: results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial of symptomatic patients. , 2012, Radiology.

[9]  Paul Fockens,et al.  Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. , 2012, The Lancet. Oncology.

[10]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  What are natural frequencies? , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  Deborah Marshall,et al.  Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health — How are Studies being Designed and Reported? , 2010, The patient.

[12]  James A Brink,et al.  Managing incidental findings on abdominal CT: white paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[13]  R. Wong,et al.  Extracolonic findings on CT colonography increases yield of colorectal cancer screening. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  Kevin M. Johnson,et al.  Extracardiac findings on coronary CT angiograms: Limited versus complete image review. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Colorectal and extracolonic cancers detected at screening CT colonography in 10,286 asymptomatic adults. , 2010, Radiology.

[16]  David H. Kim,et al.  CT colonography: performance and program outcome measures in an older screening population. , 2010, Radiology.

[17]  A. Zauber,et al.  Extracolonic findings from CTC: balancing risks and benefits. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  Rongwei Fu,et al.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Targeted, Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  David J Vanness,et al.  Unsuspected extracolonic findings at screening CT colonography: clinical and economic impact. , 2008, Radiology.

[20]  R. Fletcher,et al.  Extracolonic findings with computed tomographic colonography: asset or liability? , 2008, Archives of internal medicine.

[21]  Diederick E Grobbee,et al.  Prevalence of Incidental Findings in Computed Tomographic Screening of the Chest: A Systematic Review , 2008, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[22]  J. Barkin,et al.  CT Colonography versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Advanced Neoplasia , 2008 .

[23]  M. Oudkerk,et al.  Neglectable benefit of searching for incidental findings in the Dutch--Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) using low-dose multidetector CT , 2007, European Radiology.

[24]  R. Mendelson,et al.  Computed Tomographic Colonography: Prevalence, Nature, and Clinical Significance of Extracolonic Findings in a Community Screening Program , 2005, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[25]  J. Sosna,et al.  Extracolonic findings at CT colonography , 2005, Abdominal Imaging.

[26]  Greg M Galdino,et al.  Extracolonic abnormalities discovered incidentally at CT colonography in a male population. , 2005, Radiology.

[27]  David J Brenner,et al.  Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? , 2005, Gastroenterology.

[28]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health care , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[29]  J. Protheroe Communicating risk , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[30]  J. Eng,et al.  Sample Size Estimation : How Many Individuals Should Be Studied ? , 2022 .

[31]  C. Johnson,et al.  Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population. , 2003, Gastroenterology.

[32]  M Ryan,et al.  Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. , 2001, Health technology assessment.

[33]  H. Welch,et al.  US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. , 2000, BMJ.

[34]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.