This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (21)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Gastrointestinal Diseases  • Oncology  • Colon Cancer  • Computed Tomography  • Alert me on articles by topic

David F. Ransohoff, MD

JAMA. 2004;291:1772-1774.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Virtual colonoscopy has been under development for more than a decade, but only recently has it been reported to have sufficiently high enough sensitivity (94%) and specificity (96%) for detecting large (1 cm) polyps to warrant serious consideration as an option for colon cancer screening.¹ However, the study by Cotton and colleagues² in this issue of THE JOURNAL reports a much lower sensitivity (55%) for this technique. The results of the previous study by Pickhardt et al¹ showed what the advanced technology, including bowel preparation, software, method of interpretation, and training, can achieve in ideal circumstances, whereas the current study by Cotton et al demonstrates what the technology likely would achieve if implemented in community practice. In light of such differences in the results of these 2 studies, how should physicians, investigators, policy makers, and payers address questions of development and implementation of virtual colonoscopy?

. . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

RELATED ARTICLE

Computed Tomographic Colonography (Virtual Colonoscopy): A Multicenter Comparison With Standard Colonoscopy for Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia
Peter B. Cotton, Valerie L. Durkalski, Benoit C. Pineau, Yuko Y. Palesch, Patrick D. Mauldin, Brenda Hoffman, David J. Vining, William C. Small, John Affronti, Douglas Rex, Kenyon K. Kopecky, Susan Ackerman, J. Steven Burdick, Cecelia Brewington, Mary A. Turner, Alvin Zfass, Andrew R. Wright, Revathy B. Iyer, Patrick Lynch, Michael V. Sivak, and Harold Butler
JAMA. 2004;291(14):1713-1719.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Blood Markers for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review
Hundt et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:1935-1953.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

CT Colonography: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?
Macari and Bini
Radiology 2005;237:819-833.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Reader Training in CT Colonography: How Much Is Enough?
Soto et al.
Radiology 2005;237:26-27.
FULL TEXT  

Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation performed well in detecting colorectal polyps
Ransohoff
Evid. Based Med. 2005;10:55-55.
FULL TEXT  

Colonoscopy: Virtual and Optical--Another Look, Another View
Ferrucci
Radiology 2005;235:13-16.
FULL TEXT  

Cancer Screening in Theory and in Practice
Brawley and Kramer
JCO 2005;23:293-300.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Colorectal Cancer Prevention
Hawk and Levin
JCO 2005;23:378-391.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Fecal DNA versus Fecal Occult Blood for Colorectal-Cancer Screening in an Average-Risk Population
Imperiale et al.
NEJM 2004;351:2704-2714.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Colon Is a Pelvic Organ Too: Taking the Couric Challenge
Karlan
Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:907-909.
FULL TEXT  

Update in General Internal Medicine
Kroenke and Logio
ANN INTERN MED 2004;141:213-220.
FULL TEXT