Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps

Fecal-tagging CT colonography with structure-analysis electronic cleansing for detection of colorectal flat lesions

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility and sensitivity of the 3D-reading of fecal-tagging CT colonography (CTC) with a novel structure-analysis electronic cleansing (SAEC) in detecting colorectal flat lesions in comparison with a cleansed 3D reading with Viatronix V3D Colon system (V3D) and primary uncleansed 2D reading (2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty CTC cases with flat lesions were retrospectively observed. The Subjects from a multicenter clinical trial underwent cathartic bowel preparation with orally administrated barium-based fecal-tagging. Sixty-nine flat lesions were confirmed using colonoscopy and histopathology as a reference standard. The results from SAEC reading were compared with those of prospective V3D and 2D readings.

RESULTS

Overall detection sensitivity with SAEC was 52% (36/69), which was statistically higher than that of 32% (22/69) and 29% (20/69) with V3D and 2D readings, respectively (p<0.05). The sensitivities in detecting not-on-fold flat lesions were 63% (24/38), 45% (17/38), and 42% (16/38) with SAEC, V3D, and 2D readings, respectively; whereas those of on-fold flat lesions were 39% (12/31), 16% (5/31), and 13% (4/31), respectively. None of the eight flat lesions (2-9mm) at cecum was detected by any of the three reading methods. Excluding the flat lesions at cecum, the sensitivity with SAEC for detecting flat lesion ≥4mm increased to 84% (31/37).

CONCLUSIONS

The fecal-tagging CTC with structure-analysis electronic cleansing could yield a high sensitivity for detecting flat lesions ≥4mm. The not-on-fold flat lesions were detected with higher sensitivity than on-fold flat lesions.

Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection--systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies assessing the sensitivity of both computed tomographic (CT) colonography and optical colonoscopy (OC) for colorectal cancer detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. The primary data source was the results of a detailed PubMed search from 1994 to 2009. Diagnostic studies evaluating CT colonography detection of colorectal cancer were assessed by using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, in particular requiring both OC and histologic confirmation of disease. Studies that also included a mechanism to assess true-positive versus false-negative diagnoses at OC (eg, segmental unblinding) were used to calculate OC sensitivity. Assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Potential bias was ascertained by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines. Specific CT colonography techniques were cataloged. Forest plots of per-patient sensitivity were produced on the basis of random-effect models. Potential bias across primary studies was assessed by using the I(2) statistic. Original study authors were contacted for data clarification when necessary.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies provided data on 11,151 patients with a cumulative colorectal cancer prevalence of 3.6% (414 cancers). The sensitivity of CT colonography for colorectal cancer was 96.1% (398 of 414; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.8%, 97.7%). No heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%) was detected. No cancers were missed at CT colonography when both cathartic and tagging agents were combined in the bowel preparation. The sensitivity of OC for colorectal cancer, derived from a subset of 25 studies including 9223 patients, was 94.7% (178 of 188; 95% CI: 90.4%, 97.2%). A moderate degree of heterogeneity (I(2) = 50%) was present.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography is highly sensitive for colorectal cancer, especially when both cathartic and tagging agents are combined in the bowel preparation. Given the relatively low prevalence of colorectal cancer, primary CT colonography may be more suitable than OC for initial investigation of suspected colorectal cancer, assuming reasonable specificity.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11101887/-/DC1.

Fluid tagging for CT colonography: effectiveness of a 2-hour iodinated oral preparation after incomplete optical colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the distal extent and attenuation of bowel opacification achieved after administration of a single low volume dose of oral contrast 2 hours before computed tomographic colonography (CTC) after incomplete optical colonoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 144 patients undergoing CTC after incomplete colonoscopy from April 2006 to July 2008 at 2 separate medical centers. Each patient received 20 to 30 mL of diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution 2 hours before being scanned.

RESULTS

The distalmost extent of opacification was: stomach/small bowel, n = 13; cecum, n = 2; ascending colon, n = 7; transverse colon, n = 19; descending colon, n = 14; sigmoid colon, n = 24; rectum, n = 65. The mean attenuation of each opacified segment was: cecum, 449 Hounsfield units (HU); ascending colon, 474 HU; transverse colon, 468 HU; descending colon, 421 HU; sigmoid colon, 391 HU; and rectum, 382 HU. In 103 (71.5%) patients, oral contrast reached the distal colon (descending colon, sigmoid colon, or rectum). The oral contrast did not reach the colon in only 13 (9.0%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral administration of a small volume hyperosmolar oral contrast agent 2 hours before CTC results in satisfactory colonic opacification in the majority of patients. Adding same-day fluid tagging in incomplete colonoscopy patients presenting for completion CTC should result in adequate fluid opacification for most of the colon, especially proximal segments not visualized at the time of incomplete colonoscopy.

Mosaic decomposition: an electronic cleansing method for inhomogeneously tagged regions in noncathartic CT colonography

Electronic cleansing (EC) is a method that segments fecal material tagged by an X-ray-opaque oral contrast agent in computed tomographic colonography (CTC) images, and effectively removes the material for digitally cleansing the colon. In this study, we developed a novel EC method, called mosaic decomposition (MD), for reduction of the artifacts due to incomplete cleansing of inhomogeneously tagged fecal material in CTC images, especially in noncathartic CTC images. In our approach, the entire colonic region, including the residual fecal regions, was first decomposed into a set of local homogeneous regions, called tiles, after application of a 3-D watershed transform to the CTC images. Each tile was then subjected to a single-class support vector machine (SVM) classifier for soft-tissue discrimination. The feature set of the soft-tissue SVM classifier was selected by a genetic algorithm (GA). A scalar index, called a soft-tissue likelihood, is formulated for differentiation of the soft-tissue tiles from those of other materials. Then, EC based on MD, called MD-cleansing, is performed by first initializing of the level-set front with the classified tagged regions; the front is then evolved by use of a speed function that was designed, based on the soft-tissue index, to reserve the submerged soft-tissue structures while suppressing the residual fecal regions. The performance of the MD-cleansing method was evaluated by use of a phantom and of clinical cases. In the phantom evaluation, our MD-cleansing was trained with the supine (prone) scan and tested on the prone (supine) scan, respectively. In both cases, the sensitivity and specificity of classification were 100%. The average cleansing ratio was 90.6%, and the soft-tissue preservation ratio was 97.6%. In the clinical evaluation, 10 noncathartic CTC cases (20 scans) were collected, and the ground truth of a total of 2095 tiles was established by manual assignment of a material class to each tile. Five cases were randomly selected for training GA/SVM, and the remaining five cases were used for testing. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the proposed classification scheme were 97.1% and 85.3%, respectively, and the accuracy was 94.6%. The area under the ROC curve (Az) was 0.96. Our results indicated that the use of MD-cleansing substantially improved the effectiveness of our EC method in the reduction of incomplete cleansing artifacts.

High positive predictive value of CT colonography in a referral centre

AIM

To assess the positive predictive value (PPV) of CTC in the clinical routine of a dedicated referral centre.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All consecutive patients referred for CTC between May 2009 and May 2010 were considered for inclusion in this study. All the patients who, following the diagnosis of a>6 mm polyp or mass at CTC, underwent a post-CTC colonoscopy within eight weeks from diagnosis were included. Per patient PPV for lesions, adenomas and advanced neoplasia was calculated. Chi-square test was used for statistical comparison, and a p value<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

516 patients were included in the study. Of them, 76 (14%) patients had at least one lesion≥6 mm on CTC. Overall, 59 (11%) patients were diagnosed at CTC with at least one polyp, 12 (2%) with a flat lesions, and 5 (1%) with a mass. Per-patient PPVs for any lesion>6 mm, neoplasia, and advanced neoplasia were 96% (95% CI: 92-100%), 68.4% (95% CI: 58-79%), and 30% (95% CI: 20-41%), respectively. PPV for neoplasia and advanced neoplasia was substantially higher for >10 mm lesions.

CONCLUSION

In dedicated centers, CTC appears to be a highly specific procedure, characterized by a very low rate of false-positive results for >6 mm lesions.

Gas insufflation of minimal preparation CT of the colon reduces false-positives

OBJECTIVES

Minimal preparation CT of the colon (MPCT colon) is used for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer in frail and/or elderly patients who would be expected to tolerate laxative bowel preparation poorly. Although it has good sensitivity for colorectal cancer it has a poor specificity. We wished to investigate whether distension of the colon with carbon dioxide alone would reduce the number of false-positives, but without making the test arduous or excessively uncomfortable.

METHODS

134 patients were recruited and underwent MPCT colon with gas insufflation and antispasmodics. Results were compared with a cohort of 134 patients undergoing standard protocol MPCT colon. The numbers of false-positives were compared, as was reader confidence. All trial patients were given a questionnaire documenting their experience.

RESULTS

The number of false-positives was 15% in the control group and 5% in the trial group; this difference was statistically significant, (p=0.01). Reader confidence was increased in the trial group. Patient tolerance was good, with 95% saying they would have the test again.

CONCLUSION

Use of gas insufflation and antispasmodics reduces the false-positives from 15% to 5% without adversely affecting patient tolerance.

The impact of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening on the UK NHS: costs, healthcare resources and health outcomes

BACKGROUND

Biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for individuals aged 60-69 years is the primary screening tool for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the UK NHS, despite a large number of patients undergoing an unnecessary optical colonoscopy (OC) and evidence from modelling studies to suggest that more cost-effective technologies exist. CT colonography (CTC) is an emerging CRC screening technology with the potential to prevent CRC by detecting pre-cancerous polyps and to detect cancer at an earlier stage.

OBJECTIVE

to assess the impact of introducing CTC into the UK NHS screening programme for CRC on key health outcomes as well as the NHS budget and healthcare resource capacity.

METHODS

a discrete Markov model was used to reflect the natural history of CRC and the impact of three screening scenarios (biennial FOBT with and without CTC triage of patients referred to OC, and CTC every 5 years) on a range of health outcomes, including the incidence and prevalence of CRC, in a hypothetical cohort of individuals. The yearly costs, health outcomes and healthcare resource capacity requirements were estimated over a 10-year period (2009-18).

RESULTS

using CTC to follow up FOBT-positive patients (scenario 2) was less costly than directing all FOBT-positive patients to OC (scenario 1); saving £776 283 over 10 years for 100 000 individuals invited for screening (year 2007 values), primarily by avoiding approximately 1700 OCs, but was estimated to require 2200 additional CT scans. Implementing a programme of 5-yearly CTC as a primary screen is expected to be more expensive than FOBT screening over the short term (driven by high screening and diagnosis costs), despite substantial savings in treatment costs for CRC over the 10-year time horizon of the model and improved health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

adding CTC into the existing NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme as part of a preventive screening strategy could be less costly to the NHS over the longer term when used to triage FOBT-positive patients to appropriate follow-up. Increased demand for radiology services may be compensated for by reduced demand in endoscopy units.

CT colonography may improve colorectal cancer screening compliance

OBJECTIVE

While colonoscopy is currently the preferred test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, the invasive and time-consuming characteristics of the test are often cited as reasons for noncompliance with screening. CT colonography (CTC) is a less invasive screening method that is comparable to colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. The aim of this project was to assess patient preferences between colonoscopy and CTC in an open access system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred fifty consecutive average-risk patients undergoing CRC screening completed a survey that assessed reasons for choosing CTC in lieu of colonoscopy, compliance with CRC screening if CTC was not offered, and which of the two tests they preferred.

RESULTS

The most common reasons for undergoing CTC included convenience (33.6%), recommendation by referring provider (13.2%), and perceived safety (10.8%). Had CTC not been an available option, 91 of the 250 patients (36%) would have foregone CRC screening. Among the 57 patients who had experienced both procedures, 95% (n = 54) preferred CTC.

CONCLUSION

These findings show the importance of providing CTC as an alternative screening option for CRC at our institution, which may increase CRC adherence screening rates.

Computed tomographic colonography: ready for prime time?

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a noninvasive method to evaluate the colon and has received considerable attention in the last decade as a colon-imaging tool. The technique has also been proposed as a potential primary colon cancer-screening method in the United States. The accuracy of the technique for the detection of large lesions seems to be high, perhaps in the range of colonoscopy. Overall, the field is rapidly evolving. Available data suggest that CT colonography, although a viable colon cancer screening modality in the United States, is not ready for widespread implementation, largely because of the lack of standards for training and reading and the limited number of skilled readers.

Non-laxative CT colonography with barium-based faecal tagging: is additional phosphate enema beneficial and well tolerated?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerance of an additional phosphate enema prior to non-laxative CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

71 patients (mean age 80 years, 28 male, 43 female) underwent non-laxative CTC following 4 oral doses of diluted 2% w/w barium sulphate. Patients were invited to self-administer a phosphate enema 2 h before CTC. An experienced observer graded the volume of retained stool (1 (nil) to 4 (>75% bowel circumference coated)), retained fluid ((1 (nil) to 4 (>50% circumference obscured)), retained stool tagging quality (1 (untagged) to 5 (≥75% to 100%) tagged) and confidence a polyp ≥6 mm could be excluded (yes/no) for each of six colonic segments. Tolerance of the enema was assessed via questionnaire. Data were analysed between those using and not using the enema by Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact test. 18/71 patients declined the enema.

RESULTS

There was no reduction in residual stool volume with enema use compared with non-use either overall (mean score 2.6 vs 2.7, p = 0.76) or in the left colon (mean 2.3 vs 2.4, p = 0.47). Overall tagging quality was no different (mean score 4.4 vs 4.3, p = 0.43). There was significantly more retained left colonic fluid post enema (mean score 1.9 vs 1.1, p<0.0001), and diagnostic confidence in excluding polyps was significantly reduced (exclusion not possible in 35% segments vs 21% without enema, p = 0.006). Of 53 patients, 30 (56%) found the enema straightforward to use, but 4 (8%) found it unpleasant.

CONCLUSION

Phosphate enema use prior to non-laxative CTC leads to greater retained fluid, reducing diagnostic confidence, and is not recommended.

Reducing the oral contrast dose in CT colonography: evaluation of faecal tagging quality and patient acceptance

AIM

To evaluate the minimal iodine contrast medium load necessary for an optimal computed tomography colonography tagging quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Faecal occult blood test positive patients were randomly selected for one of three iodine bowel preparations: (1) 3 × 50 ml meglumine ioxithalamate (45 g iodine), (2) 4 × 25 ml meglumine ioxithalamate (30 g iodine); or (3) 3 × 25 ml (22.5 g iodine) meglumine ioxithalamate. Two experienced readers assessed the tagging quality per colonic segment on a five-point scale and the presence of adherent stool. Also semi-automatic homogeneity measurements were performed. Patient acceptance was assessed with questionnaires.

RESULTS

Of 70 eligible patients, 45 patients participated (25 males, mean age 62 years). Each preparation group contained 15 patients. The quality of tagging was insufficient (score 1-2) in 0% of segments in group 1; 4% in group 2 (p<0.01 versus group 1); and 5% in group 3 (p=0.06 versus group 1). In group 1 in 11% of the segments adherent stool was present compared with 49% in group 2 and 41% in group 3 (p<0.01, group 2 and 3 versus group 1). Homogeneity was 85, 102 (p<0.01), and 91 SD HU (p=0.26) in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In group 1 two patients experienced no burden after contrast agent ingestion compared to one patient in group 2 and nine patients in group 3 (p=0.017).

CONCLUSION

A dose of 3 × 50 ml meglumine ioxithalamate is advisable for an optimal tagging quality despite beneficial effects on the patient acceptance in patients receiving a lower dose.

Colorectal cancer screening: The role of CT colonography

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has two roles: one present and the other potential. The present role is, without any further discussion, the integration into established screening programs as a replacement for barium enema in the case of incomplete colonoscopy. The potential role is the use of CTC as a first-line screening method together with Fecal Occult Blood Test, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. However, despite the fact that CTC has been officially endorsed for CRC screening of average-risk individuals by different scientific societies including the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology, and the US Multisociety Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, other entities, such as the US Preventive Services Task Force, have considered the evidence insufficient to justify its use as a mass screening method. Medicare has also recently denied reimbursement for CTC as a screening test. Nevertheless, multiple advantages exist for using CTC as a CRC screening test: high accuracy, full evaluation of the colon in virtually all patients, non-invasiveness, safety, patient comfort, detection of extracolonic findings and cost-effectiveness. The main potential drawback of a CTC screening is the exposure to ionizing radiation. However, this is not a major issue, since low-dose protocols are now routinely implemented, delivering a dose comparable or slightly superior to the annual radiation exposure of any individual. Indirect evidence exists that such a radiation exposure does not induce additional cancers.

Low-fiber diet in limited bowel preparation for CT colonography: Influence on image quality and patient acceptance

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether a low-fiber diet is necessary for optimal tagging-only bowel preparation for CT colonography.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Fifty consecutively enrolled patients received an iodine bowel preparation: 25 patients used a low-fiber diet and 25 used no special diet. One observer determined the tagging quality per segment on a 5-point scale (1, inhomogeneous tagging; 5, excellent preparation) and the largest size of untagged feces. Semiautomatic measurements of density and homogeneity of residual feces were performed. Patient acceptance was assessed with questionnaires. Per polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm in diameter and larger was calculated for two experienced observers.

RESULTS

Tagging quality was scored less than grade 5 in 15 segments (10%) in the low-fiber diet group and in 25 segments (17%) in the unrestricted diet group (p = 0.098). One piece of untagged feces 10 mm in diameter or larger was found in the low-fiber diet group, and 12 were found in the unrestricted diet group (p < 0.001). Automatic measurement of attenuation resulted in a mean value of 594 HU in the low-fiber diet group and 630 HU in the unrestricted diet group (p = 0.297). In the low-fiber diet group, 22% of patients indicated that the bowel preparation was extremely or severely burdensome; 8% of patients in the unrestricted diet group had this response (p = 0.19). Thirty-two polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger were found in the low-fiber diet group and 30 in the unrestricted diet group. Observer 1 had 84% and 77% sensitivity in detecting polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger in the low-fiber diet and unrestricted diet groups, respectively (p = 0.443), and observer 2 had 97% and 83% sensitivity (p = 0.099).

CONCLUSION

Use of a low-fiber diet in bowel preparation for CT colonography results in significantly less untagged feces and shows a trend toward better residue homogeneity.

Accuracy of routine nontargeted CT without colonography technique for the detection of large colorectal polyps and cancer

BACKGROUND

To assess the accuracy of routine contrast-enhanced computed tomography for the detection of large colorectal polyps and cancer.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 100 patients who underwent abdominal computed tomography and optical colonoscopy evaluation before any treatment or intervention. Invasive colorectal carcinoma and large polyps (>or=10mm) were found at colonoscopy in 29 and 16 patients, respectively. Computed tomography studies with oral and IV contrast were retrospectively reviewed as 5-mm thick sections in standard soft tissue windows by 3 readers. The readers scored each segment for polyp or cancer utilizing a 5-point scale for receiver operating characteristic analysis.

RESULTS

By-patient sensitivity/specificity for cancer detection for each reader was 69.0%/88.7%, 65.5%/84.5%, and 82.8%/77.5%, respectively. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for cancer was 72.4%, 83.6%, and 80.3%, respectively. The empiric area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the readers ranged from 0.775 to 0.857. By-patient sensitivity for large polyps was poor with a pooled sensitivity of 14.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard computed tomography not tailored to colorectal investigation was moderately effective for detecting invasive cancers, but insensitive for large polyps. Unsuspected cancer should be a part of the standard search pattern for routine computed tomography interpretation, but more advanced colonography techniques are necessary for detecting large polyps.

Limited-preparation CT colonography in frail elderly patients: a feasibility study

OBJECTIVE

Full colonic preparation can be onerous and may be poorly tolerated in frail elderly patients. The purpose of this study was to prospectively assess the image quality and diagnostic yield of limited-preparation CT colonography (CTC) in elderly patients with suspected colorectal cancer who were deemed medically unfit or unsuitable for colonoscopy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A prospective study was performed of 67 elderly patients with reduced functional status referred for CTC. Participants were prescribed a limited bowel preparation consisting of a low-residue diet for 3 days, 1 L of 2% oral diatrizoate meglumine (Gastrografin) 24 hours before CTC, and 1 L of 2% oral Gastrografin over the 2 hours immediately before CTC. No cathartic preparation was administered. All colonic segments were graded from 1 to 5 for image quality (1, unreadable; 2, poor; 3, equivocal; 4, good; 5, excellent) and reader confidence. Clinical and conventional colonoscopy follow-up findings were documented, and all colonic and extracolonic pathologic findings were documented.

RESULTS

Overall image quality and reader confidence in the evaluation of the colon was rated good or excellent in 84% of the colonic segments. Colonic abnormalities were identified in 12 patients (18%), including four colonic tumors, two polyps, and seven colonic strictures. Incidental extraintestinal findings were detected in 43 patients (64%), including nine patients with lesions radiologically consistent with malignancy.

CONCLUSION

Limited-preparation low-dose CTC is a feasible and useful minimally invasive technique with which to evaluate the colon and exclude gross pathology (mass lesions and polyps > 1 cm) in elderly patients with diminished performance status, yielding good to excellent image quality.

Nonlaxative PET/CT colonography: feasibility, acceptability, and pilot performance in patients at higher risk of colonic neoplasia

CT colonography without bowel preparation is a safer and better-tolerated alternative to full laxation protocols, but comparative sensitivity and specificity are potentially reduced. Uptake of (18)F-FDG by colonic neoplasia is well described, and combining PET with nonlaxative CT colonography could improve accuracy. The purpose was to prospectively test the technical feasibility and acceptability of combined nonlaxative PET/CT colonography in patients at higher risk of colorectal neoplasia and to provide pilot data on diagnostic performance.

METHODS

Fifty-six patients (median age, 64 y; 30 women) at high risk of colonic neoplasia underwent nonlaxative PET/CT colonography with barium fecal tagging within 2 wk of scheduled colonoscopy. Colonic segmental distension was graded 1 (poor) to 3 (good). A radiologist, experienced in CT colonography, and nuclear medicine physician in consensus analyzed the datasets. The diagnostic performance for standalone CT colonography and combined PET/CT colonography was compared with the reference colonoscopy. Patient experience for 25 items (each scored from 1 to 7) pertaining to satisfaction, worry, and physical discomfort was canvassed after both PET/CT colonography and colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Distension was good in 298 of 334 segments (89%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 85%-92%). Patients experienced more physical discomfort during colonoscopy (median, 4; interquartile range [IQR], 2-7) than during PET/CT colonography (median, 5; IQR, 3-7; P = 0.03) and were more willing to undergo PET/CT colonography again (36/43 [84%; 95% CI, 73%-95%] vs. 31/43 [72%; 95% CI, 59%-86%]; P = 0.001). Twenty-one patients had 54 polyps according to colonoscopy (10 with at least 1 polyp >or=6 mm and 8 with at least 1 polyp >or=10 mm). Of 14 polyps 6 mm or greater, 12 (86%; 95% CI, 67%-100%) were (18)F-FDG-avid, including all those 10 mm or greater (mean standardized uptake value, 10.1). CT colonography sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was 92.9% (95% CI, 79.4%-100%) and was not improved by the addition of PET. However, combined PET/CT colonography review improved per-patient positive predictive value for a polyp 10 mm or greater from 73% (95% CI, 39-92) to 100% (95% CI, 60-100).

CONCLUSION

In this feasibility study, simultaneous PET acquisition during nonlaxative CT colonography is technically feasible, is well tolerated, and potentially improves specificity.

Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. Early detection and removal of CRC or its precursor lesions by population screening can reduce mortality. Colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) are highly accurate exams and screening options that examine the entire colon. The success of screening depends on the participation rate. We designed a randomized trial to compare the uptake, yield and costs of direct colonoscopy population screening, using either a telephone consultation or a consultation at the outpatient clinic, versus CT colonography first, with colonoscopy in CT colonography positives.

Methods and design

7,500 persons between 50 and 75 years will be randomly selected from the electronic database of the municipal administration registration and will receive an invitation to participate in either CT colonography (2,500 persons) or colonoscopy (5,000 persons) screening. Those invited for colonoscopy screening will be randomized to a prior consultation either by telephone or a visit at the outpatient clinic. All CT colonography invitees will have a prior consultation by telephone. Invitees are instructed to consult their general practitioner and not to participate in screening if they have symptoms suggestive for CRC. After providing informed consent, participants will be scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome measure of this study is the participation rate. Secondary outcomes are the diagnostic yield, the expected and perceived burden of the screening test, level of informed choice and cost-effectiveness of both screening methods.

Discussion

This study will provide further evidence to enable decision making in population screening for colorectal cancer.

Trial registration

Dutch trial register: NTR1829

Performance of CT colonography for detecting small, diminutive, and flat polyps

The primary goal of colorectal cancer screening and prevention is the detection and removal of advanced neoplasia. Computerized tomography (CT) colonography is now well established as an effective screening test. Areas of greater uncertainty include the performance characteristics of CT colonography for detecting small (6-9 mm), diminutive (< or =5 mm), and flat (nonpolypoid) lesions. However, the actual clinical relevance of small, diminutive, and flat polyps has also been the source of debate. This article addresses these controversial and often misunderstood issues.

The role of CT colonography in a colorectal cancer screening program

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) has the potential to become a major component of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs and to have a significant effect on CRC prevention. This article describes the potential role of CTC within the framework of colorectal cancer screening. Current screening recommendations and traditional screening tests are reviewed, followed by a summary of recent study results on the use of CTC as a screening tool. Several factors that are affecting the acceptance and adoption of CTC are outlined. Although CTC is valuable and holds considerable promise as a way to increase the use of CRC screening, these issues need to be addressed before CTC becomes more widely disseminated as a screening modality.

Current techniques in the performance, interpretation, and reporting of CT colonography

The technical objective of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is to acquire high-quality computed tomography images of the cleansed, well-distended colon for polyp detection. In this article the authors provide an overview of the technical components of CTC, from preparation of the patient to acquisition of the imaging data and basic methods of interpretation. In each section, the best evidence for current practices and recommendations is reviewed. Each of the technical components must be optimized to achieve high sensitivity in polyp detection.

Electronic cleansing for CT colonography: does it help CAD software performance in a high-risk population for colorectal cancer?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of computer-aided detection (CAD) for CT colonography (CTC) with and without electronic cleansing (EC) in a high-risk population tagged with a faecal tagging (FT) protocol.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients underwent CTC followed by same-day colonoscopy. All patients underwent bowel preparation and FT with barium and gastrografin. Each CTC dataset was processed with colon CAD with and without EC. Per-polyp sensitivity was calculated. The average number of false-positive (FP) results and their causes were also analysed and compared.

RESULTS

Eighty-six polyps were detected in 29 patients. Per-polyp sensitivities of CAD with EC (93.8% and 100%) were higher than those without EC (84.4% and 87.5%) for polyps >or=6 mm and >or=10 mm, respectively. However, the differences were not significant. The average number (6.3) of FPs of CAD with EC was significantly larger than that (3.1) without EC. The distribution of FPs in both CAD settings was also significantly different. The most common cause of FPs was the ileocaecal valve in both datasets. However, untagged faeces was a significantly less common cause of FPs with EC, EC-related artefacts being more common.

CONCLUSION

Electronic cleansing has the potential to improve per-polyp sensitivity of CTC CAD, although the significantly larger number of FPs with EC remains to be improved.

Pictorial essay: the value of rectal water in the assessment of rectosigmoid pathology

The rectosigmoid region is a common location for the development of both malignant and benign diseases of the large bowel in adults. In many cases, rectal water provides an ideal contrast agent in the evaluation of rectosigmoid pathology. It allows optimal visualization of the mural layers and pericolic fat, as well as superior detection of flat or small sessile mural-based intralumenal filling defects. The authors of this article have devised practical clinical indications for the administration of rectal water that may help guide the radiologist in deciding when to implement this technique. Furthermore, this pictorial essay will describe the technique used by the authors, highlight the utility of this technique, and explore its practical applications and limitations in clinical practice.

Informatics in radiology: Electronic cleansing for noncathartic CT colonography: a structure-analysis scheme

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography performed after tagging of fecal matter but without a cathartic agent, or noncathartic CT colonography (also known as laxative-free CT colonography), is regarded as a promising next-generation technique for reducing or eliminating the discomfort associated with cathartic bowel preparation, which is the major barrier to undergoing colon cancer screening. Electronic cleansing is an emerging technique for the removal of tagged fecal materials from CT colonographic images. Three major electronic cleansing artifacts--soft-tissue degradation, pseudo-soft-tissue structures, and incomplete cleansing--severely impair the quality of electronically cleansed noncathartic CT colonographic images and limit the diagnostic utility of this modality. A structure-analysis electronic cleansing scheme was developed that makes use of local morphologic information to identify submerged colonic soft-tissue structures while removing the tagged material. Combined with other cutting-edge image processing techniques, including local roughness analysis, mosaic decomposition, and level set segmentation, structure-analysis cleansing helps eliminate the aforementioned artifacts, providing diagnostic-quality cleansed CT colonographic images for the detection of colon cancer. Noncathartic CT colonography with the application of structure-analysis cleansing is expected to help promote CT colonography as a patient-friendly method of colorectal cancer screening.

Computed tomography colonography: advantages and main points

AIM: To evaluate the advantages of computed tomography (CT) colonography and to summarize the main points for CT colonography.

METHODS: Multislice CT colonography was performed in 46 patients with suspected colonic diseases, of which some patients underwent CT colonography in both the supine and prone positions. Different post-processing techniques such as multiplanar reformation (MPR), CT virtual colonoscopy, shaded surface display, Raysum and virtual pathology were employed to evaluate the mucosal and peripheral appearance of the colon.

RESULTS: Eleven patients showed negative results. Eleven patients were diagnosed as colon polyps, of which one had familial colonic polyposis. Sixteen patients were diagnosed as malignant lesions, of which 2 showed local thickening of the colon wall and 14 showed mass lesions. Five patients were diagnosed as inflammatory diseases.

CONCLUSION: The location, size, density and adjacent invasion of colon lesions can be evaluated objectively by CT colonography. The main points for CT colonography include sufficient cleansing of the colon lumen, adequate air injection, and combination of multiple post-processing techniques.

Computed tomographic colonography: Hope or hype?

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a promising emerging technology for imaging of the colon. This concise review discusses the currently available data on CTC technique, test characteristics, acceptance, safety, cost-effectiveness, follow-up strategy, and extracolonic findings. In summary, CTC technique is still evolving, and further research is needed to clarify the role of automated colonic insufflation, smooth-muscle relaxants, intravenous and oral contrast, software rendering, and patient positioning. Currently, full bowel preparation is still required to achieve optimal results. The sensitivity for detecting large polyps (> 1 cm) can be as high as 85%, with specificity of up to 97%. These test characteristics are almost comparable to those of conventional colonoscopy. Patient acceptance of CTC is generally higher than that for colonoscopy, especially in patients who have never undergone either procedure. CTC is generally safe, although uncommon instances of colonic perforation have been documented. In terms of cost-effectiveness, most decision analyses have concluded that CTC would only be cost-effective if it were considerably cheaper than conventional colonoscopy. The proper follow-up strategy for small polyps or incidental extracolonic findings discovered during CTC is still under debate. At present, the exact clinical role of virtual colonoscopy still awaits determination. Even though widespread CTC screening is not available today, in the future there may eventually be a role for this technology. Technological advances in this area will undoubtedly continue, with multi-detector row CT scanners allowing thinner collimation and higher resolution images. Stool-tagging techniques are likely to evolve and may eventually allow for low-preparation CTC. Perceptual and fatigue-related reading errors can potentially be minimized with the help of computer-aided detection software. Further research will define the exact role of this promising technology in our diagnostic armamentarium.

CT colonography with decreased purgation: balancing preparation, performance, and patient acceptance

OBJECTIVE

Reduction or elimination of catharsis with fecal tagging enhances the tolerability of CT colonography (CTC) and may increase compliance with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations. We systematically reviewed studies that prospectively evaluated performance and patient satisfaction with decreased-purgation CTC and with optical colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

The nine studies reviewed showed moderate-to-good performance for decreased-purgation CTC; however, data are limited, and study design and data presentation are inconsistent. Further study of decreased-purgation CTC and standardization of terminology are needed.

ACR Colon Cancer Committee white paper: status of CT colonography 2009

PURPOSE

To review the current status and rationale of the updated ACR practice guidelines for CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

Clinical validation trials in both the United States and Europe are reviewed. Key technical aspects of the CTC examination are emphasized, including low-dose protocols, proper insufflation, and bowel preparation. Important issues of implementation are discussed, including training and certification, definition of the target lesion, reporting of colonic and extracolonic findings, quality metrics, reimbursement, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Successful validation trials in screening cohorts both in the United States with ACRIN and in Germany demonstrated sensitivity > or = 90% for patients with polyps >10 mm. Proper technique is critical, including low-dose techniques in screening cohorts, with an upper limit of the CT dose index by volume of 12.5 mGy per examination. Training new readers includes the requirement of interactive workstation training with 2-D and 3-D image display techniques. The target lesion is defined as a polyp > or = 6 mm, consistent with the American Cancer Society joint guidelines. Five quality metrics have been defined for CTC, with pilot data entered. Although the CMS national noncoverage decision in May 2009 was a disappointment, multiple third-party payers are reimbursing for screening CTC. Cost-effective modeling has shown CTC to be a dominant strategy, including in a Medicare cohort.

CONCLUSION

Supported by third-party payer reimbursement for screening, CTC will continue to further transition into community practice and can provide an important adjunctive examination for colorectal screening.

Cost effectiveness of CT colonography for UK NHS colorectal cancer screening of asymptomatic adults aged 60-69 years

BACKGROUND

Screening of populations at risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) allows the detection and successful treatment of tumours and their precursor polyps. The current UK CRC screening programme is faecal occult blood testing (FOBT), despite evidence from modelling studies to suggest that more cost-effective technologies exist.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of CT colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer screening from the perspective of the UK NHS.

METHODS

A state-transition Markov model was constructed to estimate lifetime costs and health outcomes of a cohort of individuals screened at age 60-69 years using four different CRC screening technologies: FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, optical colonoscopy and CTC.

RESULTS

CTC screening offered every 10 years was cost saving compared with the current UK programme of biennial FOBT screening. This strategy also yielded greater health benefits (QALYs and life-years) than biennial FOBT screening. The model fit observed CRC epidemiology data well and was robust to changes in underlying parameter values. CTC remained cost effective under a range of assumptions in the univariate sensitivity analysis. However, in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, CTC dominated FOBT in only 5.9% of simulations and was cost effective at a threshold of pound30,000 per QALY gained in 48% of simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

CTC has the potential to provide a cost-effective option for CRC screening in the UK NHS and may be cost saving compared with the current programme of biennial FOBT. Further analysis is required to assess the impact of introducing CTC to the UK CRC screening programme on the NHS budget and capacity.

CT colonography: same-day tagging regimen with iodixanol and reduced cathartic preparation

The purpose of the study was to test the tagging performance and patient's acceptance of a reduced cathartic preparation, based on iodixanol and PEG, administered to patients 3 h before the exam. One hundred and thirty-two asymptomatic patients were enrolled. As colonic cleansing we used PEG macrogol 3350. For fluid tagging iodixanol was orally administered 3 h before the exam, in a total dose of 50 mL mixed with 34.8 g of PEG in 750 mL of water. Image's review showed 446 segments (56.4%) clean of feces and 346 segments (43.6%) with feces. Untagged fluid was observed in 74/706 (10.5%) segments; inhomogeneous tagging in 129/706 (16%); the average density of fluid was 1054.74 UH in the cecum-ascending colon and 905.14 UH in the descending-sigmoid colon; the average difference of density between right and left colonic segments was 149 UH, and it was statistically significant (P = 0.016). No side effects related to the consumption of Movicol were reported. Very few side effects related to the tagging solution were reported: mild nausea in 7 (0.05%) patients, mild diarrhea in 10 (0.07%). An average rank of 9 points (SD +/- 1) on a 10-point scale (10 = no discomfort, 0 = severe discomfort) resulted from the self-administered questionnaire, showing an excellent acceptance of the preparation. Same day fluid tagging with iodixanol provides an optimal fluid tagging, it is completely tolerated by the patient, and it can be performed under medical control.

Comparison study of different bowel preparation regimens and different fecal-tagging agents on tagging efficacy, patients' compliance, and diagnostic performance of computed tomographic colonography: preliminary study

PURPOSE

To compare and find the optimal combination of bowel preparation regimens and different concentrations of barium-based fecal-tagging agents on computed tomographic colonography in terms of tagging efficacy, patients' compliance, and diagnostic performance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-nine consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled and randomly divided into 4 groups according to a combination of bowel preparation regimens (sodium phosphate [Colclean] vs magnesium citrate [LoSoPrep]) and different concentrations of barium-based fecal-tagging agents (Tagitol V [thick, 40% wt/vol] 60 mL vs EasyCT [thin, 4.6% wt/vol] 600 mL). Patients who received Colclean and EasyCT were designated as group 1; Colclean and Tagitol V as group 2; LoSoPrep and EasyCT, group 3; and LoSoPrep and Tagitol V, group 4. For objective analysis, the volume of tagged feces and fluid was semiautomatically calculated using a threshold of 150 Hounsfield units. The volume of untagged feces and fluid was also calculated using the seeded region-growing method. The tagging efficacy was then calculated and compared using the analysis of variance test. For subjective analysis, 2 radiologists visually determined the overall tagging efficacy on a segmental basis. The numbers of homogeneously tagged, heterogeneously tagged, heterogeneously untagged, and homogeneously untagged feces greater than or equal to 6 mm and fluid were counted in each segment. The rates of homogeneously tagged stool and fluid were compared between the groups using the chi test. Patients' compliance for taking the regimens was recorded and compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Per-polyp and per-patient sensitivity for polyps greater than or equal to 6 mm were analyzed and compared using the chi or Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

Objective analysis showed that tagging efficacy was significantly lower in group 1 than in the other 3 groups. In a subjective analysis, overall tagging efficacy was significantly higher in group 4 than in the other groups. The rate of homogeneously tagged fluid was significantly higher in group 4 than in the other groups. The rate of homogeneously tagged feces was significantly higher in the thick barium group than in the thin barium group. Patients' compliance was significantly worse in group 1 than in the other 3 groups. Per-polyp and per-patient sensitivities for polyps greater than or equal to 6 mm were not significantly different among all groups. However, per-patient specificity for lesions greater than or equal to 10 mm was significantly lower in group 2 than in the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With better tagging efficacy and compliance while maintaining comparable diagnostic performance, it is our belief that the best combination of bowel preparation and fecal-tagging regimen is a combination of magnesium citrate and a high concentration of a barium tagging agent.

Comparative evaluation of the fecal-tagging quality in CT colonography: barium vs. iodinated oral contrast agent

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this evaluation was to compare the tagging quality of a barium-based regimen with that of iodine-based regimens for computed tomographic (CT) colonography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tagging quality was assessed retrospectively in three different types of fecal-tagging CT colonographic cases: 24 barium-based cases, 22 nonionic iodine-based cases, and 24 ionic iodine-based cases. For the purpose of evaluation, the large intestine was divided into six segments, and the tagging homogeneity of a total of 420 segments (70 patients) was graded by three blinded readers from 0 (heterogeneous) to 4 (homogeneous).

RESULTS

For barium-based cases, the average score for the three readers was 2.4, whereas it was 3.4 for nonionic iodine and 3.6 for ionic iodine. The percentages of segments that were assigned scores of 4 (excellent tagging [100%]) were 11.6%, 61.9%, and 72.9% for the barium-based, nonionic iodine-based, and ionic iodine-based regimens, respectively. The homogeneity scores of iodine-based fecal-tagging regimens were significantly higher than those of the barium-based fecal-tagging regimen (P < .001). The CT attenuation values of tagging in the cases were also assessed: the minimum and maximum values were significantly higher for the iodine-based regimens than for the barium-based regimen (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The iodine-based fecal-tagging regimens provide significantly greater homogeneity in oral-tagging fecal material than the barium-based fecal-tagging regimen. Iodine-based fecal-tagging regimens can provide an appropriate method for use in nonlaxative or minimum-laxative CT colonography.

Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the computed tomographic colonography (CTC) image quality and patient acceptance of three iodine-based faecal tagging bowel preparations in 60 patients undergoing the following regimens: a 2-day regimen of meal-time administration of iodine and phospho-soda (GFPH); a 2-day regimen of meal-time mild laxative, followed by iodine administered 2 h before CTC (SD); and a 2-day regimen of meal-time administration of iodine (GF).

METHODS

Two independent radiologists assessed tagging quality; quantitative measures included the tagged stool density, and computer-aided detection (CAD) false-positive rate.

RESULTS

The GFPH and SD regimens provided better subjective quality than GF (p < 0.001). The latter regimen resulted in a higher proportion of insufficiently tagged segments: the measured average stool density was less than 200 HU in 10.7% in all segments vs 3.6% for SD and <0.5% for GFPH, respectively. Insufficient tagging occurred mostly in the ascending colon and the caecum. The CAD false-positive rate increased following the trend: GFPH < SD < GF (p = 0.00012). GFPH was worse tolerated than SD (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering preparation quality alone, GFPH was the best regimen, but SD provided the best balance between bowel preparation quality and patient acceptability.

CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare a 1-day with a 2-day iodine bowel preparation for CT colonography in a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening population.

Materials and methods

One hundred consecutive patients underwent CT colonography and colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. The first 50 patients (group 1) ingested 7*50 ml iodinated contrast starting 2 days before CT colonography. The latter 50 patients (group 2) ingested 4*50 ml iodinated contrast starting 1 day before CT colonography. Per colonic segment measurements of residual stool attenuation and homogeneity were performed, and a subjective evaluation of tagging quality (grade 1–5) was done. Independently, two reviewers performed polyp and carcinoma detection.

Results

The tagging density was 638 and 618 HU (p = 0.458) and homogeneity 91 and 86 HU for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.145). The tagging quality was graded 5 (excellent) in 90% of all segments in group 1 and 91% in group 2 (p = 0.749). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for lesions ≥10 mm was 86% in group 1 and 97% in group 2 (p = 0.355). Patient burden from diarrhoea significantly decreased for patients in group 2.

Conclusions

One-day preparation with meglumine ioxithalamate results in an improved patient acceptability compared with 2-day preparation and has a comparable, excellent image quality and good diagnostic performance.

Application of computed tomographic colonography in diagnosis of colonic polyps

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical values of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in diagnosis of colonic polyps.

METHODS

Forty-two patients who were clinically suspicious of colonic polyps or underwent colonic polyps screening received examinations with both CTC and conventional colonoscopy. Sixteen- or 64-slice spiral computed tomography and professional imaging processing techniques were used for evaluation. Per-polyp and per-patient results were analyzed. Those by per-polyp were subsequently divided into > or = 10 mm group, 5-10 mm group, and < or =5 mm group. Sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated using statistical method for diagnostic studies, with conventional colonoscopy as a gold standard.

RESULTS

Ninety and 61 polyps were found by CTC and conventional colonoscopy, respectively. The per-polyp sensitivity/PPV were 80.3%/55.6% in total, and 100%/92.9%, 93.8%/65.2%, and 68.8%/ 41.5% in the > or = 10 mm group, 5-10 mm group, and < or =5 mm group, respectively. The per-patient sensitivity, PPV, specificity, NPV, and accuracy were 97.1%, 89.5%, 42.9%, 75.0%, and 88.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CTC can clearly reveal the morphology of colonic polyps and be used as a routine monitoring method for the clinical diagnosis of polyps.

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation

The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare participant experience and preference of limited preparation computed tomography colonography (CTC) with full-preparation colonoscopy in a consecutive series of patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. CTC preparation comprised 180 ml diatrizoate meglumine, 80 ml barium and 30 mg bisacodyl. For the colonoscopy preparation 4 l of polyethylene glycol solution was used. Participants’ experience and preference were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the chi-squared test, respectively. Associations between preference and experience parameters for the 173 participants were determined by logistic regression. Diarrhoea occurred in 94% of participants during CTC preparation. This side effect was perceived as severely or extremely burdensome by 29%. Nonetheless, the total burden was significantly lower for the CTC preparation than for colonoscopy (9% rated the CTC preparation as severely or extremely burdensome compared with 59% for colonoscopy; p < 0.001). Participants experienced significantly more pain, discomfort and total burden with the colonoscopy procedure than with CTC (p < 0.001). After 5 weeks, 69% preferred CTC, 8% were indifferent and 23% preferred colonoscopy (p < 0.001). A burdensome colonoscopy preparation and pain at colonoscopy were associated with CTC preference (p < 0.04). In conclusion, participants’ experience and preference were rated in favour of CTC with limited bowel preparation compared with full-preparation colonoscopy.

Full-laxative versus minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CT colonography using 64-detector row CT: prospective blinded comparison of diagnostic performance, tagging quality, and patient acceptance

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To compare prospectively 64-detector-row computed tomographic colonography (CTC) after a full-laxative tagging-based preparation (full preparation) with a minimum-laxative tagging-based preparation (minimum preparation) with respect to diagnostic performance in the detection of polyps, tagging quality, and patient acceptance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive 101 patients at high risk for developing colorectal cancer were alternately assigned to either a full preparation group (n = 51) or a minimum preparation group (n = 50) for fecal-tagging CTC. The full preparation consisted of administration of 2-L polyethylene glycol solution with 20 mL of sodium diatrizoate for fecal tagging. The minimum preparation consisted of ingestion of a total of 45 mL of sodium diatrizoate during the 3 days before and 10 mL of sodium picosulfate solution the night before CT. Colonoscopy was used as the reference standard. We assessed the accuracy of polyp detection and the tagging quality for each preparation. All patients were given questionnaires related to their acceptance.

RESULTS

Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for polyps > or = 6 mm were as follows: full preparation group, 97%, 92%, 88%, and 98%, respectively; minimum preparation group, 88%, 68%, 56%, and 92%, respectively. Average visual subjective tagging scores for the full and minimum preparation groups were 94.6% and 76.1%, respectively (P < .0001). Minimum preparation was better tolerated than full preparation.

CONCLUSION

Although full-laxative and minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CTC yielded an equally high sensitivity in the detection of polyps > or = 6 mm, the full-laxative fecal-tagging CTC yielded a better specificity than did the minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CTC. Thus, it is desirable to offer patients an option of either full-laxative fecal-tagging CTC for highest diagnostic accuracy and ability to perform a same-day therapeutic colonoscopy without additional bowel preparation, or minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CTC for those unwilling to undergo full preparation but willing to accept moderate decrease in specificity.

Computed tomographic colonography: current perspectives and future directions

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography, also known as virtual colonoscopy or CT colography, is capable of detecting colon polyps and cancers. It is emerging rapidly and has gained great momentum over the past several years, to the point where it has been proposed to be a viable primary colon cancer screening option. Despite the current publicity, many issues concerning CT colonography remain. As of 2009, the following topics are of paramount importance: (1) accuracy, including both sensitivity and specificity, (2) bowel preparation, (3) safety, (4) extracolonic findings, (5) patient acceptability, (6) training and standardization, and (7) implementation of CT colonography. Although much about CT colonography has already been learned, more remains to be learned in the future.

[CT colonography: patient preparation and examination technique]

An examination technique adapted to comply with the demands of CT colonography is not only a basic requirement for a high-quality examination and correct ascertainment of the findings; it is also essential for far-reaching applications of this method of examination. The technique of CT colonography is based on good patient preparation with the aid of fecal tagging, adequate distension of the colon with CO(2) and acquisition of data with the patient both prone and supine in a thin-slice technique using a low-dose protocol. The different technical aspects of CT colonography are explained in this paper.

[Indications for and results of CT colonography: from screening to the symptomatic patient]

CT colonography (CTC) is also referred to as virtual colonoscopy and is being used with increasing frequency in radiological practice. While there are still no generally accepted, clear-cut indications for its use in mass colorectal cancer screening, there is evidence that this investigation is useful in patients in whom colonoscopy has not been successful or who have known stenotic lesions in the colon. Recent results of significant comparative studies of CTC and conventional colonoscopy will have some influence on the future place of CTC in screening for cancer of the bowel; they show the great potential of CT-aided bowel examination.

CT colonography versus optical colonoscopy for screening asymptomatic patients for colorectal cancer a patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) analysis

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The American College of Radiology has recently endorsed the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) for colon cancer screening. With advances in technology and postprocessing software, the quality of computed tomographic colonographic studies has improved, and new techniques are being developed to reduce radiation exposure and increase patient acceptance of the procedure. The aim of colorectal cancer screening is to reduce the incidence of malignancy by identifying and removing presymptomatic lesions. The aim of this study was to answer the clinical question: In an asymptomatic patient at average risk for colon cancer, is CTC equivalent to optical colonoscopy (OC) for detecting clinically significant polyps?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate CTC compared to OC, using the patient, intervention, comparison intervention, outcome (PICO) search strategy. The PubMed search used Medical Subject Headings, including the terms "computed tomography colonography," "colonoscopy," "screening," and "polyp." Each of the retrieved articles was assigned a level of evidence using the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine's hierarchy of validity for diagnostic studies.

RESULTS

PICO search criteria and review of abstracts identified 16 relevant studies. Using the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine's hierarchy of validity, there were three level 1c studies, two level 2a studies, three level 2b studies, four level 3b studies, two level 4 studies, and two level 5 studies. All relevant studies demonstrated that CTC had high or moderately high per patient and per polyp sensitivity and specificity compared to OC for clinically relevant polyps (>5 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of evidence suggests that CTC is an acceptable alternative to OC, particularly in the group of patients who are either unwilling or unable to undergo OC. The results of the large, multicenter American College of Radiology Imaging Network study are pending. This trial presented preliminary results in 2007 suggesting that the sensitivity and specificity of CTC are high and comparable to those of OC.

CT colonography: techniques and applications

CT colonography (CTC), also termed virtual colonoscopy, is increasingly accepted at sites throughout the world as a new effective tool for the diagnosis and screening of colorectal carcinoma. This article presents information of related issues of bowel cleansing, stool and fluid tagging, bowel distention and multidetector CT scanning parameters. The author presents discussion of interpretation of CTC, appropriate applications of CTC and potential complications.

Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers?

The purpose of this study was to compare a primary uncleansed 2D and a primary electronically cleansed 3D reading strategy in CTC in limited prepped patients. Seventy-two patients received a low-fibre diet with oral iodine before CT-colonography. Six novices and two experienced observers reviewed both cleansed and uncleansed examinations in randomized order. Mean per-polyp sensitivity was compared between the methods by using generalized estimating equations. Mean per-patient sensitivity, and specificity were compared using the McNemar test. Results were stratified for experience (experienced observers versus novice observers). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices using cleansed 3D (65%; 95%CI 57–73%) compared with uncleansed 2D (51%; 95%CI 44–59%). For experienced observers there was no significant difference. Mean per-patient sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices as well: respectively 75% (95%CI 70–80%) versus 64% (95%CI 59–70%). For experienced observers there was no statistically significant difference. Specificity for both novices and experienced observers was not significantly different. For novices primary electronically cleansed 3D is better for polyp detection than primary uncleansed 2D.