The National CT Colonography Trial: assessment of accuracy in participants 65 years of age and older.

PURPOSE: To conduct post-hoc analysis of National CT Colonography Trial data and compare the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) colonography in participants younger than 65 years with those in participants aged 65 years and older. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 2600 asymptomatic participants recruited at 15 centers for the trial, 497 were 65 years of age or older. Approval of this HIPAA-compliant study was obtained from the institutional review board of each site, and informed consent was obtained from each subject. Radiologists certified in CT colonography reported lesions 5 mm in diameter or larger. Screening detection of large (≥10-mm) histologically confirmed colorectal neoplasia was the primary end point; screening detection of smaller (6-9-mm) colorectal neoplasia was a secondary end point. The differences in sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography in the two age cohorts (age < 65 years and age ≥ 65 years) were estimated with bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Complete data were available for 477 participants 65 years of age or older (among 2531 evaluable participants). Prevalence of adenomas 1 cm or larger for the older participants versus the younger participants was 6.9% (33 of 477) versus 3.7% (76 of 2054) (P < .004). For large neoplasms, mean estimates for CT colonography sensitivity and specificity among the older cohort were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.644, 0.944) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.779, 0.883), respectively. For large neoplasms in the younger group, CT colonography sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.837, 0.967) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.816, 0.899), respectively. Per-polyp sensitivity for large neoplasms for the older and younger populations was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.578, 0.869) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.717, 0.924), respectively. For the older and younger groups, per-participant sensitivity was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.565, 0.854) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.745, 0.882) for detecting adenomas 6 mm in diameter or larger. CONCLUSION: For most measures of diagnostic performance and in most subsets, the difference between senior-aged participants and those younger than 65 years was not statistically significant.

Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.

PURPOSE: To determine which factors contributed to the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) cancer detection results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This project was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved. Seven radiologist readers reviewed the film hard-copy (screen-film) and digital mammograms in DMIST cancer cases and assessed the factors that contributed to lesion visibility on both types of images. Two multinomial logistic regression models were used to analyze the combined and condensed visibility ratings assigned by the readers to the paired digital and screen-film images. RESULTS: Readers most frequently attributed differences in DMIST cancer visibility to variations in image contrast--not differences in positioning or compression--between digital and screen-film mammography. The odds of a cancer being more visible on a digital mammogram--rather than being equally visible on digital and screen-film mammograms--were significantly greater for women with dense breasts than for women with nondense breasts, even with the data adjusted for patient age, lesion type, and mammography system (odds ratio, 2.28; P < .0001). The odds of a cancer being more visible at digital mammography--rather than being equally visible at digital and screen-film mammography--were significantly greater for lesions imaged with the General Electric digital mammography system than for lesions imaged with the Fischer (P = .0070) and Fuji (P = .0070) devices. CONCLUSION: The significantly better diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography, as compared with screen-film mammography, in women with dense breasts demonstrated in the DMIST was most likely attributable to differences in image contrast, which were most likely due to the inherent system performance improvements that are available with digital mammography. The authors conclude that the DMIST results were attributable primarily to differences in the display and acquisition characteristics of the mammography devices rather than to reader variability.