View Item 

Show simple item record

As tests evolve and costs of cancer care rise: reappraising stool-based screening for colorectal neoplasia

dc.contributor.authorParekh, M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFendrick, A. Marken_US
dc.contributor.authorLadabaum, Urien_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T20:25:09Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T20:25:09Z
dc.date.issued2008-04en_US
dc.identifier.citationPAREKH, M.; FENDRICK, A. M.; LADABAUM, U. (2008). "As tests evolve and costs of cancer care rise: reappraising stool-based screening for colorectal neoplasia." Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 27(8): 697-712. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73533>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0269-2813en_US
dc.identifier.issn1365-2036en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73533
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=18248653&dopt=citationen_US
dc.format.extent298180 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rightsJournal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.titleAs tests evolve and costs of cancer care rise: reappraising stool-based screening for colorectal neoplasiaen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOtolaryngologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPharmacy and Pharmacologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationum† Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationum§ Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationum¶ Consortium for Health Outcomes, Innovation, and Cost-Effectiveness Studies (CHOICES), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother* Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother† Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USAen_US
dc.identifier.pmid18248653en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73533/1/j.1365-2036.2008.03632.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03632.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeuticsen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLevin B, Brooks D, Smith RA, Stone A. Emerging technologies in screening for colorectal cancer: CT colonography, immunochemical fecal occult blood tests, and stool screening using molecular markers. CA Cancer J Clin 2003; 53: 44 – 55.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJemal A, Murray T, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005; 55: 10 – 30.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 132 – 41.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J. Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 96 – 104.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEddy DM. Screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 373 – 84.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLieberman DA. Cost-effectiveness model for colon cancer screening. Gastroenterology 1995; 109: 1781 – 90.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrazier AL, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS, Kuntz KM. Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA 2000; 284: 1954 – 61.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSonnenberg A, Delco F, Inadomi J. Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 573 – 84.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWagner JL, Tunis S, Brown M, Ching A, Almeida R. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in average risk adults. In: Young G, Rozen P, Levin B, eds. Prevention and Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1996: 321 – 56.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 594 – 642.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLadabaum U, Chopra CL, Huang G, Scheiman JM, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 769 – 81.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVijan S, Hwang EW, Hofer TP, Hayward RA. Which colon cancer screening test? A comparison of costs, effectiveness, and compliance. Am J Med 2001; 111: 593 – 601.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKhandker RK, Dulski JD, Kilpatrick JB, Ellis RP, Mitchell JB, Baine WB. A decision model and cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for average-risk adults. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 799 – 810.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChao A, Connell CJ, Cokkinides V, Jacobs EJ, Calle EE, Thun MJ. Underuse of screening sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy in a large cohort of US adults. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 1775 – 81.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference15 Colorectal cancer test use among persons aged > or = 50 years – United States, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2003; 52: 193 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchroy PC, Heeren TC. A comparative study of patient perceptions and screening preferences for stool-based DNA testing (SBDNA), fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or colonoscopy (CS) (Abstract). Gastroenterology 2003; 124: A-77.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchroy PC, Heeren TC. Patient perceptions of stool-based DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med 2005; 28: 208.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerger BM, Schroy PC 3rd, Rosenberg JL, et al. Colorectal cancer screening using stool DNA analysis in clinical practice: early clinical experience with respect to patient acceptance and colonoscopic follow-up of abnormal tests. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2006; 5: 338 – 43.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSeeff LC, Manninen DL, Dong FB, et al. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States? Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1661 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSong K, Fendrick AM, Ladabaum U. Fecal DNA testing compared to conventional colorectal cancer screening methods: a decision analysis. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: 1270 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceImperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, Turnbull BA, Ross ME. Fecal DNA versus fecal occult blood for colorectal-cancer screening in an average-risk population. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2704 – 14.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLadabaum U, Song K. Projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening on clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 1151 – 62.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOlson J, Whitney DH, Durkee K, Shuber AP. DNA stabilization is critical for maximizing performance of fecal DNA-based colorectal cancer tests. Diagn Mol Pathol 2005; 14: 183.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhitney D, Skoletsky J, Moore K, et al. Enhanced retrieval of DNA from human fecal samples results in improved performance of colorectal cancer screening test. J Mol Diagn 2004; 6: 386.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRashid A, Issa JP. CpG island methylation in gastroenterologic neoplasia: a maturing field. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1578.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceItzkowitz SH, Jandorf L, Brand R, et al. Improved fecal DNA test for colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 111 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGerber HP, Ferrara N. Pharmacology and pharmacodynamics of bevacizumab as monotherapy or in combination with cytotoxic therapy in preclinical studies. Cancer Res 2005; 65: 671 – 80.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 2335 – 42.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMendelsohn J, Baselga J. Status of epidermal growth factor receptor antagonists in the biology and treatment of cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2787 – 99.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 337 – 45.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchrag D. The price tag on progress – chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 317 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1365 – 71.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH, et al. The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1603 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBat L, Pines A, Ron E, Niv Y, Arditi E, Shemesh E. A community-based program of colorectal screening in an asymptomatic population: evaluation of screening tests and compliance. Am J Gastroenterol 1986; 81: 647 – 51.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBond JH. The place of fecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening in 2006: the U.S. perspective. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 219 – 21.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996; 348: 1472 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIoannou GN, Chapko MK, Dominitz JA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening participation in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2082 – 91.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKronborg 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 – 71.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLiang SY, Phillips KA, Nagamine M, Ladabaum U, Haas JS. Rates and predictors of colorectal cancer screening. Prev Chronic Dis 2006; 3: A117.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMeissner HI, Breen N, Klabunde CN, Vernon SW. Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake among men and women in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006; 15: 389 – 94.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorris JB, Stellato TA, Guy BB, Gordon NH, Berger NA. A critical analysis of the largest reported mass fecal occult blood screening program in the United States. Am J Surg 1991; 161: 101 – 5; discussion 105–6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMyers RE, Balshem AM, Wolf TA, Ross EA, Millner L. Adherence to continuous screening for colorectal neoplasia. Med Care 1993; 31: 508 – 19.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSeeff LC, Nadel MR, Klabunde CN, et al. Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult U.S. population. Cancer 2004; 100: 2093 – 103.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShapiro JA, Seeff LC, Nadel MR. Colorectal cancer-screening tests and associated health behaviors. Am J Prev Med 2001; 21: 132 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLadabaum U, Song K, Fendrick AM. Colorectal neoplasia screening with virtual colonoscopy: when, at what cost, and with what national impact? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 554 – 63.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference46 CMS Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ClinicalLabFeeSched/02_clinlab.asp#TopOfPage, accessed on 19 April 2007.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLadabaum U, Scheiman JM, Fendrick AM. Potential effect of cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitors on the prevention of colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Med 2003; 114: 546 – 54.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBernold DM, Sinicrope FA. Advances in chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4: 808 – 21.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKabbinavar F, Hurwitz HI, Fehrenbacher L, et al. Phase II, randomized trial comparing bevacizumab plus fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) with FU/LV alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 60 – 5.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMeyerhardt JA, Mayer RJ. Systemic therapy for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 476 – 87.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaltz LB, Meropol NJ, Loehrer PJ Sr, Needle MN, Kopit J, Mayer RJ. Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 1201 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference52 Life tables. In: Vital Statistics of the United States. Preprint of Vol. II, Mortality, Part A, Section 6. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1998: Section 6, pp. 1 – 18.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale – update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003; 124: 544 – 60.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 1872 – 85.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003; 53: 27 – 43.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAllison JE. Colon Cancer Screening Guidelines 2005: the fecal occult blood test option has become a better FIT. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 745 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAllison JE, Tekawa IS, Ransom LJ, Adrain AL. A comparison of fecal occult-blood tests for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 155 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRozen P, Knaani J, Samuel Z. Performance characteristics and comparison of two immunochemical and two guaiac fecal occult blood screening tests for colorectal neoplasia. Dig Dis Sci 1997; 42: 2064 – 71.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreenberg PD, Bertario L, Gnauck R, et al. A prospective multicenter evaluation of new fecal occult blood tests in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 1331 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorikawa T, Kato J, Yamaji Y, Wada R, Mitsushima T, Shiratori Y. A comparison of the immunochemical fecal occult blood test and total colonoscopy in the asymptomatic population. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 422 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKo CW, Dominitz JA, Nguyen TD. Fecal occult blood testing in a general medical clinic: comparison between guaiac-based and immunochemical-based tests. Am J Med 2003; 115: 111 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNakama H, Yamamoto M, Kamijo N, et al. Colonoscopic evaluation of immunochemical fecal occult blood test for detection of colorectal neoplasia. Hepatogastroenterology 1999; 46: 228 – 31.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRozen P, Knaani J, Samuel Z. Comparative screening with a sensitive guaiac and specific immunochemical occult blood test in an endoscopic study. Cancer 2000; 89: 46 – 52.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVilkin A, Rozen P, Levi Z, et al. Performance characteristics and evaluation of an automated-developed and quantitative, immunochemical, fecal occult blood screening test. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 2519 – 25.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWong BC, Wong WM, Cheung KL, et al. A sensitive guaiac faecal occult blood test is less useful than an immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening in a Chinese population. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18: 941 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYoung GP, St John DJ, Cole SR, et al. Prescreening evaluation of a brush-based faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin. J Med Screen 2003; 10: 123 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference67 Enterix Corporation. Available at: http://www.insuretest.com/professionals/invitro.html, accessed on October 2006.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLaupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992; 146: 473 – 81.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLaupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations revisited. CMAJ 1993; 148: 927 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 1995; 15: 369 – 90.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEddy DM, Nugent FW, Eddy JF, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer in a high-risk population. Results of a mathematical model. Gastroenterology 1987; 92: 682 – 92.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference72 The DRG Handbook: Comparative Clinical and Financial Standards. Baltimore, MD: HCIA, Inc. and Ernst & Young LLP, 1997.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrown ML, Riley GF, Potosky AL, Etzioni RD. Obtaining long-term disease specific costs of care: application to Medicare enrollees diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Med Care 1999; 37: 1249 – 59.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFireman BH, Quesenberry CP, Somkin CP, et al. Cost of care for cancer in a health maintenance organization. Health Care Financ Rev 1997; 18: 51 – 76.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTaplin SH, Barlow W, Urban N, et al. Stage, age, comorbidity, and direct costs of colon, prostate, and breast cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 417 – 26.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreene FL. American Joint Committee on Cancer, American Cancer Society. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edn. New York: Springer, 2002.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference77 NCDB Site by Stage Distribution of Cancer – 2003. Available at: http://www.facs.org/cancer/ncdb/ver7_site_stage_2003.htm, accessed on 20 April 2007.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldberg RM, Sargent DJ, Morton RF, et al. A randomized controlled trial of fluorouracil plus leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combinations in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 23 – 30.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGiantonio BJ. Bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in second- and third-line settings. Semin Oncol 2006; 5 ( Suppl. 10 ): S15 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference80 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Indexes, Available at: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/, accessed on 12 February 2008, accessed on 20 April 2007.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLipscomb J, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW. Time preference. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996: 214 – 35.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHardcastle JD, Thomas WM, Chamberlain J, et al. Randomised, controlled trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Results for first 107,349 subjects. Lancet 1989; 1: 1160 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLoeve F, Brown ML, Boer R, van Ballegooijen M, van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JDF. Endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: a cost-saving analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 557 – 63.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLing BS, Moskowitz MA, Wachs D, Pearson B, Schroy PC. Attitudes toward colorectal cancer screening tests. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 822 – 30.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDominitz JA, Provenzale D. Patient preferences and quality of life associated with colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 1997; 92: 2171 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLeard LE, Savides TJ, Ganiats TG. Patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening. J Fam Pract 1997; 45: 211 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNelson RL, Schwartz A. A survey of individual preference for colorectal cancer screening technique. BMC Cancer 2004; 4: 76.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePignone M, Bucholtz D, Harris R. Patient preferences for colon cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med 1999; 14: 432 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePignone M, Harris R, Kinsinger L. Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 761 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSheikh RA, Kapre S, Calof OM, Ward C, Raina A. Screening preferences for colorectal cancer: a patient demographic study. South Med J 2004; 97: 224 – 30.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClark JC, Collan Y, Eide TJ, et al. Prevalence of polyps in an autopsy series from areas with varying incidence of large-bowel cancer. Int J Cancer 1985; 36: 179 – 86.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVatn MH, Stalsberg H. The prevalence of polyps of the large intestine in Oslo: an autopsy study. Cancer 1982; 49: 819 – 25.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilliams AR, Balasooriya BA, Day DW. Polyps and cancer of the large bowel: a necropsy study in Liverpool. Gut 1982; 23: 835 – 42.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArminski TC, McLean DW. Incidence and distribution of adenomatous polyps of the colon and rectum based on 1,000 autopsy examinations. Dis Colon Rectum 1964; 19: 249 – 61.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRickert RR, Auerbach O, Garfinkel L, Hammond EC, Frasca JM. Adenomatous lesions of the large bowel: an autopsy survey. Cancer 1979; 43: 1847 – 57.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, Steinauer-Gebauer AM, Wall SD, McQuaid KR. Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 2001; 219: 685 – 92.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRies LAG, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Harras A, Edwards BK ( eds ). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973–1994, NIH Pub. No. 97-2789. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1997.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977 – 81.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
j.1365-2036.2008.03632.x.pdf
Size:
291.1KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.