Detection of potentially relevant extracolonic and colorectal findings at CT colonography in a low-risk symptomatic patient population

CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS): Version 2023 Update

The CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS) has withstood the test of time and proven to be a robust classification scheme for CT colonography (CTC) findings. C-RADS version 2023 represents an update on the scheme used for colorectal and extracolonic findings at CTC. The update provides useful insights gained since the implementation of the original system in 2005. Increased experience has demonstrated confusion on how to classify the mass-like appearance of the colon consisting of soft tissue attenuation that occurs in segments with acute or chronic diverticulitis. Therefore, the update introduces a new subcategory, C2b, specifically for mass-like diverticular strictures, which are likely benign. Additionally, the update simplifies extracolonic classification by combining E1 and E2 categories into an updated extracolonic category of E1/E2 since, irrespective of whether a finding is considered a normal variant (category E1) or an otherwise clinically unimportant finding (category E2), no additional follow-up is required. This simplifies and streamlines the classification into one category, which results in the same management recommendation.

The yield and patient factors associated with CT colonography C-RADS results in a non-screening patient population

OBJECTIVES

To determine the proportion of diagnostic computed tomography colonography (CTC) Reporting and Data System (C-RADS) categories in a non-screening population, and which patient factors are associated with a positive CTC (C2-4), a non-diagnostic CTC (C0), and potentially relevant extracolonic findings (ECF, E3-4).

METHODS

Diagnostic CTCs performed at a single academic center from 2017 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. For each examination, the indications, age, sex, admission status, and C-RADS categories were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression was performed of patient demographic factors and clinical indications, with adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

1373 CTCs were included. The mean age was 66.4 ± 13 years (range 24-97). There were 782 women and 75 inpatients. The number of CTCs reported as C0-C4 were 194/1373 (14.1%), 970/1373 (70.6%), 77/1373 (5.6%), 86/1373 (6.3%), and 46/1373 (3.4%), respectively, and 134/1373 (9.8%), 960/1373 (69.9%), 173/1373 (12.6%), and 106/1373 (7.7%) CTCs were reported as E1-4, respectively. Factors that demonstrated the strongest associations were as follows: with C2-4, age groups 50-79 (OR 2.8, 95% confidence interval 1.4-6.1), 80-89 (6.2, 2.9-14.5) and ≥ 90 (7.6, 2.0-29.1), and inpatients (3.4, 1.8-6.4); with C0, age groups 50-79 (5.9, 2.2-24.4), 80-89 (9.8, 3.4-41.8), and ≥ 90 (22.5, 5.8-113.0), incomplete colonoscopy (3.2, 2.0-5.1) and melena or gastrointestinal bleeding (4.1, 1.8-9.4); and with E3-4, age groups 50-79 (1.6, 1.0-2.9), 80-89 (2.0, 1.1-3.9), and ≥ 90 (3.2, 1.2-8.8), and inpatients (2.3, 1.3-3.9).

CONCLUSION

Older age is increasingly associated with a positive test, a non-diagnostic test and potentially relevant ECF. Inpatients are also associated with positive tests and E3-4 findings. Symptoms are not strongly associated with a positive CTC.

Comparison of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes in a screening and diagnostic CT colonography population

PURPOSE

To compare the distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes between screening and diagnostic CT colonography (CTC) populations.

METHODS

388 consecutive patients (369 men, 19 women; mean ± SD age 67.8 ± 10 years) who underwent first-time CTC (4/2011-4/2017) at a Veteran's Affairs Medical Center were divided into screening (asymptomatic) or diagnostic (symptomatic) cohorts based on CTC indication. CTC reporting and data system E-scores for extracolonic findings were retrospectively assigned based on prospective CTC radiologic reports. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the association between E-scores and CTC indication. Electronic medical records of all patients with E3 or E4 scores were reviewed (median follow-up 2.8 years) to determine clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

68% (262/388) underwent screening and 32% (126/388) diagnostic CTC. 7.2% (28/388) had extracolonic findings considered potentially significant (E4), 4.4% (17/388) had indeterminate but likely unimportant findings (E3), and 88.4% (347/388) had normal or unimportant findings (E1 or E2). E-scores were not significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC when adjusted for age, gender, and prior imaging (p = 0.44). 4.6% (12/262) of patients with E3/E4 findings in the screening cohort demonstrated clinically significant outcomes, compared with 4.0% (5/126) in the diagnostic cohort, including a total of three extracolonic malignancies (0.8%) and three abdominal aortic aneurysms (0.8%). 4.6% (18/388) underwent follow-up imaging studies to confirm a benign outcome after detection of a category E3/E4 finding.

CONCLUSIONS

The distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC populations.