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

Quantification and significance of extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI: a retrospective analysis and three-tier classification

OBJECTIVES

To quantify extraprostatic findings (EPFs) on prostate MRI, estimate the proportion of reported and unreported EPFs, assess their clinical importance, and propose standardized reporting of EPFs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prostate 3-T MRI studies, reports, and clinical data from 623 patients (age 67.9 ± 8.2 years) were retrospectively analyzed and re-evaluated for the presence of EPFs and their clinical significance: E1-no finding or findings that have no clinical significance; E2-potentially significant findings; and E3-significant findings.

RESULTS

Secondary reading identified 1236 EPFs in 593 patients (1.98 ± 1.13 EPFs per patient, no EPFs in 30 patients), from which 468 (37.8%) were mentioned in the original report. The most common findings included diverticulosis (44% of patients), hydrocele (34%), inguinal fat hernia (16%), and bladder wall trabecular hypertrophy (15%). There were 80 (6.5%) E2 EPFs and 30 (2.4%) E3 EPFs. From E3 EPFs, 10 (33%) were not originally reported. A workup was suggested in 35 (52%) of the 67 originally reported E2 and E3 findings with follow-up and performed in 20 (30%). Fourteen (21%) EPFs in 11 patients influenced their management. Four experienced radiologists originally reported 1.8 to 2.5 findings per patient (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

EPFs on prostate MRI are frequent, but only 2.4% are clinically significant (E3), and 33% of these are not reported. Only 30% of E2 and E3 findings are further explored, and 21% influence patient management. We suggest that an "E" category should be attached to the PI-RADS system to identify the presence of EPFs that require further workup.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI are frequent, but only 2.4% are clinically significant (E3), and 33% of these are not reported. We advocate standardized reporting of extraprostatic findings indicating their clinical significance.

KEY POINTS

• Extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI are frequent with an average of two findings per patient. • 2.4% of extraprostatic findings are significant, and 33% of these are not reported. • There is a significant variability among experienced radiologists in reporting extraprostatic findings.

EXTRACOLONIC FINDINGS-IDENTIFICATION AT LOW-DOSE CTC

In contrast to optical colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography (CTC) has the ability to reveal pathology outside of the colon. While identification of colorectal lesions at CTC requires only limited radiation dose, the detection of abnormalities in extracolonic soft tissue requires more radiation. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of ultra-low-dose (ULD) CTC on the detection and characterisation of extracolonic findings. In a prospective study 49 patients with colorectal symptoms were examined with CTC adding a ULD series (mean effective dose 0.9 ± 0.4 mSv) to the normal unenhanced standard dose (SD) series (mean effective dose 3.6 ± 1.2 mSv). Five radiologists individually and blindly evaluated the ULD, followed by evaluation of the SD after ≥9 weeks (median 35 weeks). A ViewDEX-based examination protocol was used, including a confidence scale and a graded assessment of need for follow-up according to the CTC Reporting and Data System (C-RADS E0-E4). The reference findings comprised the combined information from CTC (ULD, SD and contrast-enhanced CTC series) and a 4-year radiological and clinical follow-up. For the overall detection of reference findings (E2-E4) we found a statistically significant difference in favour of SD. This, however, was not the case when looking at classification of possibly important/important reference findings (E3-E4). Our results suggest that CTC with ULD (0.9 mSv) is comparable to SD (3.6 mSv) for identification of clinically relevant extracolonic pathology, but there is a large inter-observer variability.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.

The bowel and beyond: extracolonic findings from CT colonography

CT colonography has emerged as the investigation of choice for suspected colorectal cancer in patients when a colonoscopy in incomplete, is deemed high risk or is declined because of patient preference. Unlike a traditional colonoscopy, it frequently reveals extracolonic as well as colonic findings. Our study aimed to determine the prevalence, characteristics and potential significance of extracolonic findings on CT colonography within our own institution. A retrospective review was performed of 502 patients who underwent CT colonography in our institution between January 1, 2010 and January 4, 2015. Of 502 patients, 60.63% had at least one extracolonic finding. This was close to other similar-sized studies (Kumar et al. Radiology 236(2):519-526, 2005). However, our rate of E4 findings was significantly higher than that reported in larger studies at 5.3%(Pooler et al. AJR 206:313-318, 2016). The difference may be explained by our combination of symptomatic/screening patients or by the age and gender distribution of our population. Our study lends support to the hypothesis that CT colonography may be particularly useful in identifying clinically significant extracolonic findings in symptomatic patients. CT colonography may allow early identification of extracolonic malignancies and life-threatening conditions such as an abdominal aortic aneurysm at a preclinical stage when they are amenable to medical or surgical intervention. However, extracolonic findings may also result in unnecessary investigations for subsequently benign findings.