You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
CT colonography remains an important test for colorectal cancer
  1. Nicholas Ewin Burr1,
  2. Andrew Plumb2,
  3. Ruchit Sood1,
  4. Bjorn Rembacken3,
  5. Damian J M Tolan4
  1. 1 Gastroenterology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, Leeds, UK
  2. 2 Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  3. 3 Gastroenterology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK
  4. 4 Department of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, Leeds, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Damian J M Tolan, Department of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK; damian.tolan{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324399

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We read with interest the recent article by Cash et al comparing colon capsule (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) with optical colonoscopy (OC) for detecting colonic polyps and colorectal cancer (CRC) in a screening population.1 The study reports low CTC detection rates for ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm polyps of only 8.6% and 6.3%, respectively. These were much lower than the detection rates seen for CCE and OC. These results contradict larger trials, where the performance of CTC and OC tests are similar. The Dutch COCOS randomised controlled trial (RCT) in a screening population ultimately reported identical advanced neoplasia detection rates for CTC and OC.2 3 The UK SIGGAR RCT reported identical detection rates of 11% for large polyps or CRC.4 Earlier studies from the USA also support the use of CTC.5 6 The 8.6% …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors NEB, AP, RS, BR and DJMT conceived and drafted the letter. All authors commented on drafts of the letter. All authors have approved the final draft of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.