Diagnostic value of CT-colonography as compared to colonoscopy in an asymptomatic screening population: a meta-analysis

[Colorectal cancer screening with virtual colonography]

BACKGROUND

Since 2003, a decline in the age-standardized incidence rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been observed in Germany. Nonetheless, one in eight cancer cases still affects the colon or rectum. The prognosis has improved, with the relative 5‑year survival rate for CRC being approximately 65%.

METHODS

This positive trend is probably a result of preventive measures introduced over the last 20 years. This could be further improved, however, as CRC can not only be detected early but in almost all cases also prevented through the identification of benign precursors. Less than half of all eligible individuals participate in screening via colonoscopy. This implies that further, possibly even imaging, screening test methods should be explored and offered. Studies have reported that virtual colonography techniques have a comparable accuracy to endoscopy of about 90% for polyp sizes larger than 5 mm. The data for computed tomography (CT) is more extensive than for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

CONCLUSION

Significant challenges are posed however by the fact that in Germany CT colonography (CTC) is not considered a viable screening option due to radiation protection concerns, and MRI screening is not an established screening method. Radiologists should be familiar with classification using the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS), which uses criteria such as CT density, morphology, size, and location for classification. C‑RADS classification follows the categories: C0 (inadequate study), C1 (normal), C2a (indeterminate), C2b (benign), C3 (suspicious), and C4 (malignant), as well as extracolonic categories E1/2 (no clinically significant findings), E3 (likely insignificant findings), and E4 (likely significant findings).

Colorectal Cancer Screening and Iron Deficiency Anemia

In the United States, colorectal cancer has the fourth highest amount of annual new cancer cases per year between 2014 and 2018. In this article, the authors review the data and guidelines supporting effective direct visualization and stool-based testing methods of colon cancer screening along with work-up and management of Iron Deficiency Anemia.

[CT colonography : Technique and indications]

BACKGROUND

Dedicated radiological expertise and a high-quality examination, performed according to current technical standards and for accepted indications, are prerequisite to achieve excellent results with CT colonography (CTC).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to review current standards of the examination technique as well as indications and contraindications for CTC based on recent recommendations and guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on extensive literature research, current knowledge about the examination technique and the indications and contraindications is summarized.

RESULTS

CTC is the radiological examination of choice for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. Beside incomplete or refused colonoscopy and contraindications to colonoscopy, CTC is also a noninvasive option for opportunistic colorectal cancer screening. The examination technique is based on a CTC-specific patient preparation scheme that includes fecal tagging, colonic distension, low-dose CT scans in two patient positions and a combined 2D and 3D data evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing CTC according to current technical standards is prerequisite for high-quality examinations and is, thus, also a key factor to obtain a correct diagnosis. CTC is a noninvasive examination, capable of providing clinically relevant diagnoses for a wide range of indications.

The Accuracy of Different Modalities Used for Preoperative Primary Tumour Localisation in Operated Colorectal Cancer Patients

Aim Colonoscopy and computed tomography (CT) scans of the abdomen and pelvis are routine pre-operative assessment tools in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. There have been some discrepancies regarding the location of cancer when seen by colonoscopy versus CT scan. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of a colonoscopy with a computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast, which is done routinely before surgery to localise the exact site of the tumour within the large bowel, whilst comparing both to the operative, gross and histopathology findings of the exact location. Methods A retrospective study was carried out on 165 colorectal cancer patients operated on between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014, using electronic hospital records that were reviewed anonymously, comparing the location of cancer within the large bowels as was found on colonoscopy and CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast, comparing both to post-operative histopathology specimen or intra-operative assessment in cases where no resection of the primary tumour was performed. Results CT and colonoscopy were both accurate in diagnosing 70.5% of cases that had done both investigations pre-operatively. The best results were obtained when the cancer was located in the caecum as confirmed post-operatively; the combined accuracy rate was 100%. CT was accurate, whilst colonoscopy was not in eight (6.2%) cases (all are rectal or sigmoid cancers), and colonoscopy was accurate and CT was not in 12 cases, 10 of them were rectal and two were ascending colonic. Colonoscopy was not performed in 36 (21%) cases for a variety of reasons, including large bowel obstruction or perforation on presentation. In 32 of these cases, CT scan managed to accurately predict the location of cancer (mostly rectal and caecal), and CT scan was inaccurate in 20.6% of cases (34 out of 165), whilst colonoscopy was inaccurate in 13.9% of cases (18 out of 129). Conclusion Colonoscopy is more accurate in localising colorectal cancers than CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast. CT scan diagnoses regional and distant spread of colorectal cancers such as nodal status, invasion of neighbouring organs and/or peritoneum and the presence of liver metastases, whilst colonoscopy is limited to intraluminal diagnosis but can be both a diagnostic and therapeutic tool, with higher accuracy, in general, in localising colorectal cancers. Both CT scan and colonoscopy were equal in appendicular, caecal, splenic flexure and descending colon cancer localisation accuracy.

Colon capsule endoscopy following incomplete colonoscopy in routine clinical settings

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was introduced in our department on two indications; following incomplete colonoscopy as an alternative to CT colonography, and in patients with a history of incomplete colonoscopy as an alternative to anesthesia-assisted (AA) colonoscopy. We aimed to compare the quality of CCE, defined by completion rate and polyp detection rate (PDR), with that of CT colonography and AA colonoscopy, respectively.

METHODS

Patients referred for CCE from May 2020 until November 2021 were consecutively included in this prospective cohort study. Demographics, indication and CCE outcomes were registered from the electronic patient record. Completion rate and PDR in CCE as an alternative to CT colonography were compared with those of a historical cohort undergoing CT colonography following incomplete colonoscopy. Completion rate and PDR in CCE as an alternative to AA colonoscopy were compared with those of a time true parallel cohort undergoing AA colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In 65 patients undergoing CCE, 36 (57%) were referred as an alternative to CT colonography. The completion rate in this group was 44% compared to 96% in CT colonography (p < 0.001). The PDR in complete CCE in this group was 75% in CCE compared to 20% in CT colonography (p < 0.001). The remaining 27 (43%) of the sample were referred for CCE as an alternative to AA colonoscopy. The completion rate in this group was 33% compared to 100% in AA colonoscopy (p < 0.001). The PDR in complete CCE in this group was 78% in CCE compared to 35% in AA colonoscopy (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The completion rate of CCE following incomplete colonoscopy is inferior to that of CT colonography and AA colonoscopy. The PDR of CCE was high, indicating an acceptable sensitivity in complete investigations, but in our settings the completion rate of CCE on this indication is unacceptably low.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04307901 (ClinicalTrials.gov, March 13, 2020).

Colorectal Cancer: Performance and Evaluation for CT Colonography Screening- A Multicenter Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial

Background Most radiologists reporting CT colonography (CTC) do not undergo compulsory performance accreditation, potentially lowering diagnostic sensitivity. Purpose To determine whether 1-day individualized training in CTC reporting improves diagnostic sensitivity of experienced radiologists for 6-mm or larger lesions, the durability of any improvement, and any associated factors. Materials and Methods This prospective, multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial was performed in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales between April 2017 and January 2020. CTC services were cluster randomized into intervention (1-day training plus feedback) or control (no training or feedback) arms. Radiologists in the intervention arm attended a 1-day workshop focusing on CTC reporting pitfalls with individualized feedback. Radiologists in the control group received no training. Sensitivity for 6-mm or larger lesions was tested at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months thereafter via interpretation of 10 CTC scans at each time point. The primary outcome was the mean difference in per-lesion sensitivity between arms at 1 month, analyzed using multilevel regression after adjustment for baseline sensitivity. Secondary outcomes included per-lesion sensitivity at 6- and 12-month follow-up, sensitivity for flat neoplasia, and effect of prior CTC experience. Results A total of 69 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention (31 clusters, 80 radiologists) or control (38 clusters, 59 radiologists) arm. Radiologists were experienced (median, 500-999 CTC scans interpreted) and reported CTC scans routinely (median, 151-200 scans per year). One-month sensitivity improved after intervention (66.4% [659 of 992]) compared with sensitivity in the control group (42.4% [278 of 655]; difference = 20.8%; 95% CI: 14.6, 27.0; P < .001). Improvements were maintained at 6 (66.4% [572 of 861] vs 50.5% [283 of 560]; difference = 13.0%; 95% CI: 7.4, 18.5; P < .001) and 12 (63.7% [310 of 487] vs 44.4% [187 of 421]; difference = 16.7%; 95% CI: 10.3, 23.1; P < .001) months. This beneficial effect applied to flat lesions (difference = 22.7%; 95% CI: 15.5, 29.9; P < .001) and was independent of career experience (≥1500 CTC scans: odds ratio = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.36; P = .22). Conclusion For radiologists evaluating CT colonography studies, a 1-day training intervention yielded sustained improvement in detection of clinically relevant colorectal neoplasia, independent of previous career experience. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02892721 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Pickhardt in this issue.

Implications of colonic and extra-colonic findings on CT colonography in FIT positive patients in the Dutch bowel cancer screening program

OBJECTIVES

In the Dutch National colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program, patients with a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) are referred for a colonoscopy. In a small proportion, because of contraindications, a computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is performed to rule out advanced neoplasia. The aim of our study is to evaluate the intra- and extra-colonic yield of CTC and its clinical implications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, all FIT positive patients who underwent primary (instead of colonoscopy) or secondary CTC (after incomplete colonoscopy) between January 2014 and January 2018 were included. Relevant intra-colonic lesions on CTC were defined as lesions suspected for CRC or >10 mm. Relevant extra-colonic findings were defined as E3 and E4 using the E-RADS classification.

RESULTS

Of the 268 included patients, 66 (24.6%) were suspected to have CRC or 10 mm + lesion on CTC and 56 of them (84.8%) underwent an additional endoscopy. Another 20 patients with <10 mm lesions on CTC underwent additional endoscopy. Overall, 76/268 patients (28.4%) underwent confirmatory endoscopy of which 50 (18.7%) had histologic confirmed advanced neoplasia; 4.9% had CRC and 13.8% advanced adenoma. New relevant extra-colonic findings were detected in 13.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Dutch National CRC screening program, a CTC was followed by an endoscopic procedure in more than a quarter of patients, resulting in a significant number of advanced neoplasia. Overall, one out of seven CTCs showed new relevant extra-colonic findings which may lead to further diagnostic/therapeutic work-up. Our results can be important for the informed consent procedure.

Role of CT colonography in differentiating sigmoid cancer from chronic diverticular disease

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in differentiating chronic diverticular disease from colorectal cancer (CRC), using morphological and textural parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included 95 consecutive patients with histologically proven chronic diverticular disease (n = 53) or CRC (n = 42) who underwent CTC. One radiologist, unaware of histological findings, evaluated CTC studies for the presence of potential discriminators including: maximum thickness, involved segment length, shouldering phenomenon, growth pattern, diverticula, fascia thickening, fat tissue edema, loco-regional lymph nodes, mucosal pattern. Another radiologist performed volumetric texture analysis on the involved segment.

RESULTS

Several qualitative imaging parameters resulted to significantly correlated with colorectal cancer, including absence of diverticula in the affected segment, straightened growth pattern and shouldering phenomenon. A maximum wall thickness/involved segment length ratio < 0.1 had 98% specificity and 47% sensitivity in identifying diverticular disease. Regarding first-order texture analysis parameters, kurtosis resulted to be significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Absence of diverticula, straightened growth pattern and shouldering phenomenon are significantly associated with CRC (71-91% sensitivity; 82-91%).

Public Health: Prevention

Nowadays, colorectal cancer prevention strategies play an essential role in reducing the incidence and mortality of the cases. A well-designed and establishment of the clinical pathway of screening programme needed in all country. Types of screening tools used may vary between the country with the use of FOBT and colonoscopy. The standard guideline related to screening programme such as for high-risk group should be emphasized more as compared to the low-risk group. The uptake of screening for CRC should be highlighted more as the program have showed a significantly reduction of the cases and mortality. The barrier of CRC screening uptake mainly due to poor awareness, discomfort, low physician recommendation, low socioeconomic and improper screening programme. Therefore others prevention strategies beside screening program such as health education and interactive intervention strategies need to be empower.

Evaluation of a novel colonoscope offering flexibility adjuster - a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Although colonoscopy is the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening, colonic looping may make complete colonoscopy challenging. Commonly available stiffening device colonoscopy has been described as helpful but not effective enough to prevent looping. In this context the effect on cecal intubation time and rate was described differently in various studies and in some studies had no impact on cecal intubation time at all. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a novel colonoscope with gradual stiffness (Fujifilm EC760R-V/I- flexibility adjuster, Tokyo, Japan) using four significantly different grades of stiffness can be an alternative to established devices in terms of loop prevention, cecal intubation rate and time, adverse events, and patient/examiner satisfaction.

METHODS

Consecutive patients without previous colorectal surgery were analyzed retrospectively. Colonoscopy was performed with the new colonoscope and performance characteristics, including time to cecum, withdrawal time, total examination time, and patient and endoscopist satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS

Among 180 consecutive procedures, 98.3% of examinations were complete to the cecum. The endoscopic flexibility adjuster was used in 150 of 180 cases (83.3%). Overall, the device was scored by the examiner as helpful to prevent looping in 146 of the 150 cases (97.7%). Mean cecal intubation time was 6.5 min, with 35% of examination performed in under 5 min with a mean withdrawal time of 7 min. Mean total examination time was 18 min. Patient satisfaction was rated as high in all examinations performed.

CONCLUSION

The new flexibility adjuster colonoscope was shown to be helpful in loop prevention, allowed for fast and successful cecal intubation, and led to a high rate of patients satisfaction.

Assessment of Imaging Protocol and Patients Radiation Exposure in Computed Tomography Colonography

In the screening and identifying of colon and rectum malignancy, computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a highly effective imaging technique, albeit patients receiving a significant effective dose. Accordingly, patient dose evaluation is an important need, seeking to ensure benefits outweigh the projected cancer risk. Objective: For CTC procedures carried out in the Radiology Department, Medical Imaging Operation Services, King Fahad Medical City (KFMC), evaluation is done using the current American College of Radiology (ACR) imaging protocol and concomitant patient-effective doses. Study is carried out on a sample size of 55 CTC procedures, involving 25 males (45%) and 30 females (55%). The patients were classified as follows: two groups based on CT machine; four groups based on the applied protocol; and three groups based on the procedure results. All procedures were carried out using two machines, the products of two different vendors (a GE Healthcare DISCOVERY CT 750 HD 64 slices dual-energy scanner and a Philips Brilliance CT 64 slices scanner). The overall mean, standard deviation (SD), median, and range of the effective dose (in mSv) were 11.57 ± 7.75, 9.25 (2.17–31.93). Automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) shows a significant increase in CTDIvol up to 69% and effective dose (mSv) up to 95% than the manual tube current (mA) compared to the standard protocol. The CT protocol variation results in a three-fold variation in patient-effective dose. The technologist role is crucial in selecting a noise reference based on patient weight and adjusting tube current per slice to avoid overexposure during ATCM protocol.

Recognising Colorectal Cancer in Primary Care

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. Primary care professionals can play an important role in both prevention and early detection of CRC. Most CRCs are attributed to modifiable lifestyle factors, which can be addressed within primary care, and promotion of population-based screening programmes can aid early cancer detection in asymptomatic patients. Primary care professionals have a vital role in clinically assessing patients presenting with symptoms that may indicate cancer, as most patients with CRC first present with symptoms. These assessments are often challenging—many of the symptoms of CRC are non-specific and commonly occur in patients presenting with non-malignant disease. The range of options for investigating symptomatic patients in primary care is rapidly growing. Simple tests, such as faecal immunochemical testing (FIT), are now being used to guide decisions around referral for more invasive tests, such as colonoscopy, while direct access to specialist investigations is also becoming more common. Clinical decision support tools (CDSTs) which calculate cancer risk based on symptomatology, patient characteristics and test results can provide an additional resource to guide decisions on further investigation. This article explores the challenges of CRC prevention and detection from the primary care perspective, discusses current evidence-based approaches for CRC detection used in primary care (with examples from UK guidelines), and highlights emerging research which may likely alter practice in the future.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy vs. CT Colonography Following Incomplete Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Following incomplete colonoscopy (IC) patients often undergo computed tomography colonography (CTC), but colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) may be an alternative. We compared the completion rate, sensitivity and diagnostic yield for polyp detection from CCE and CTC following IC. A systematic literature search resulted in twenty-six studies. Extracted data included inter alia, complete/incomplete investigations and polyp findings. Pooled estimates of completion rates of CCE and CTC and complete colonic view rates (CCE reaching the most proximal point of IC) of CCE were calculated. Per patient diagnostic yields of CCE and CTC were calculated stratified by polyp sizes. CCE completion rate and complete colonic view rate were 76% (CI 95% 68-84%) and 90% (CI 95% 83-95%). CTC completion rate was 98% (CI 95% 96-100%). Diagnostic yields of CTC and CCE were 10% (CI 95% 7-15%) and 37% (CI 95% 30-43%) for any size, 13% (CI 95% 9-18%) and 21% (CI 95% 12-32%) for >5-mm and 4% (CI 95% 2-7%) and 9% (CI 95% 3-17%) for >9-mm polyps. No study performed a reference standard follow-up after CCE/CTC in individuals without findings, rendering sensitivity calculations unfeasible. The increased diagnostic yield of CCE could outweigh its slightly lower complete colonic view rate compared to the superior CTC completion rate. Hence, CCE following IC appears feasible for an introduction to clinical practice. Therefore, randomized studies investigating CCE and/or CTC following incomplete colonoscopy with a golden standard reference for the entire population enabling estimates for sensitivity and specificity are needed.

Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography colonography in patients at high risk for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

AIM

The aim was to explore the diagnostic value of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) compared with conventional colonoscopy in individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the Web of Science were searched by two independent reviewers for potentially eligible studies published up to 31 October 2018 that were based on a per-patient analysis. stata, meta-disc and revman were used to perform this meta-analysis. A random-effect model was used, and a subgroup analysis was conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 14 full-text articles, involving 3578 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve of CTC for detecting polyps ≥ 6 mm were 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.90), 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.93), 9.08 (95% CI 6.28-13.13), 0.14 (95% CI 0.11-0.18) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96), respectively. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio of CTC were 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.94), 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), 40.36 (95% CI 19.16-85.03), 0.90 (95% CI 0.06-0.14) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, CTC had high diagnostic accuracy for detecting polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm in patients at high risk of developing colorectal cancer and it had a higher sensitivity and specificity for detecting polyps ≥ 10 mm than polyps ≥ 6 mm. However, the results should be used cautiously due to the significant heterogeneity.

Clinical characteristics and oncologic outcomes in patients with preoperative clinical T3 and T4 colon cancer who were staged as pathologic T3

Purpose

Clinically suspected T4 stage colon cancer from a preoperative exam is often diagnosed as T3 stage colon cancer pathologically after surgery, raising concerns about understaging. The aims of this study were to compare the survival of clinical T3 and T4 colon cancer patients who had received a pathologic T3 stage diagnosis postoperatively.

Methods

Patients who were diagnosed with pathologic T3 stage colon cancer postoperatively were reviewed. Patients with clinically suspected T3 or T4 stage cancer on preoperative exam were enrolled in the study. We compared patient demographics and survival of the cT3 and cT4 groups.

Results

Out of the 536 patients with pT3 colon cancer, 503 patients were cT3 (93.8%) and 33 patients were cT4 (6.2%) preoperatively. The most common reason for suspected clinical T4 stage cancer was free perforation (78.8%). There were no statistically significant differences between the 5-year overall survival and the total 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the cT3 and cT4 groups; however, local recurrence was significantly higher in the cT4 group (local 5-year DFS: 98.6% vs. 84.0%, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed cT stage was associated with local recurrence, but the association was not statistically significant (P = 0.056).

Conclusion

Preoperative clinically suspected T4 stage colon cancer showed inferior local recurrence despite a postoperative pathologic diagnosis of T3 stage cancer. It is necessary to address the shortcomings of pathologic exams in the matter of the understaging of T4 colon cancer, and to reinforce the treatment for local control in patients with cT4 colon cancer.

Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the participation rate between CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in screening population in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. RCTs that included screening populations and reported participation number were assessed. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the bias and quality. Risk ratio (RR) was used to present the results. The non-participation rate was analyzed to verify the results of participation rate.

RESULTS

Five of 760 studies, with a total of 15,974 invitees, were included. The participation rate was higher at CTC (28.8%) than colonoscopy (20.8%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (RR = 1.26; p = 0.070; I² = 90.3%). The non-participation rate at CTC was significantly lower than colonoscopy (RR = 0.92; p = 0.012; I² = 86.7%). Subgroup analysis suggested both the participation and non-participation rate were with significant difference between reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC and colonoscopy. Cumulative meta-analysis showed both the participation rate and non-participation rate exhibited a trend over time and sample size.

CONCLUSION

The participation rate was higher at CTC than colonoscopy, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. But the non-participation rate was with statistical difference. Screening population seemed more likely to participate the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. Statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The screening populations seem more likely to participate in the CTC, especially the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. The statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future.

[Colorectal cancer: role of imaging in screening]

CLINICAL PROBLEM

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Most colorectal cancers derive from benign precursor lesions, so-called adenomatous polyps, over a long period of time. Colorectal cancer screening is based on the detection of precancerous polyps and early stage CRC in asymptomatic individuals to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. The protective effect of screening programs can be improved by increasing the screening rates.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Apart from the established examinations, CT colonography (CTC) has been proposed as an optional test for colorectal cancer screening. The detection rates of CTC for large polyps and cancer are similar to the ones of colonoscopy and superior to stool-based tests. CTC is therefore the radiological test of choice for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. It has replaced double contrast barium enema for almost all indications. As a minimally invasive procedure, CTC has a high safety profile and good patient acceptance. The evaluation of extracolonic organs in addition to the colon can increase examination efficacy. The option to choose CTC as a CRC screening test has the potential to increase the overall screening rates.

Computed tomography colonography: a retrospective analysis of outcomes of 2 years experience in a district general hospital

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold-standard investigation for direct luminal visualization of the large bowel. Studies have shown the efficacy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) is equivalent to colonoscopy in both cancer and polyp detection.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing CTC from January 2013 to October 2014 was performed. Patient demographics, indication for investigation, computed tomography findings, optical colonoscopy findings and histology results were recorded.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and fifty-eight CTC were performed. Three hundred and seventeen patients were male (42%) and 441 (58%) were female. Endoscopy was advised in 209 cases. One hundred and twenty (16%) were deemed suspicious for cancer of whom 96 (80%) had optical colonoscopy. A total of 12 colorectal cancers were detected. Potential polyps were noted in 58 cases (8%). Forty-four patients underwent endoscopy (75%) and 17 polyps confirmed (38%). Two patients had foci of invasive cancer histologically. Significant extracolonic findings were identified in 60%, including five cases of gastric carcinomas. The most common other findings were gallstones and hernias.

CONCLUSION

The rate of colorectal cancer detection in this study was 2%. The rate of biopsy proven cancer was 10% following a suspicious colonogram. Endoscopic correlation was not obtained in 20% of cases of radiological suspicion. CTC is as efficacious as optical colonoscopy for colorectal cancer and polyp detection.

Prevalence of polyps ≥6 mm on follow-up CT colonography in a cohort with no significant colon polyps at baseline

AIM

Assess the prevalence of neoplasia ≥6 mm at repeat CT colonoscopy (CTC) in individuals with no significant lesions at baseline.

METHODS

Individuals aged ≥18 years, with/without CRC risk factors, with no polyps ≥6 mm on baseline CTC (negative baseline) who underwent repeat CTC in a large HMO from 2001 to 2011 were retrospectively identified. Studies were reviewed by board-certified radiologists with experience interpreting CTC. Demographic details, CRC risk factors, and the number, size, and location of incident lesions were noted. Findings were classified using the C-RADS scale. Lesion prevalence at CTC-2 was determined, and study interval and risk characteristics of patients with- and without findings were compared.

RESULTS

Our study included 636 individuals (369 men [58.0%]; mean age 59.9 years) with negative baseline CTC who underwent repeat CTC after a mean 4.6 year interval (SD 1.6 years). At baseline, 469/636 (73.7%) were at average risk for CRC; 418 remained at average risk for CTC-2 with 51 (8.0%) developing new risk factors in the interval between studies. At CTC-2, 47 participants (7.4%) presented 52 significant neoplasia: 35 polyps 6-9 mm, 14 polyps ≥10 mm, and 3 masses in 3/636 participants (0.47%). 2/3 masses, 6/14 polyps ≥10 mm (42.9%), and 12/25 polyps 6-9 mm (48.0%) were in individuals with risk factors for CRC. Histopathology was available for 12/52 lesions (23.1%): 8 tubular adenomas, 2 villous adenomas, 1 hamartomatous polyp, 1 case of normal tissue.

CONCLUSION

A mean 4.6 years after negative-baseline CTC, neoplasia ≥6 mm were seen in 7.4% of participants, including masses in 0.47%, supporting recommendations for a 5-year study interval.

Computed tomographic colonography with a reduced dose of laxative using a novel barium sulfate contrast agent in Japan

PURPOSE

To test the tagging efficacy, patient acceptability, and accuracy of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with a reduced dose of laxative using a novel barium sulfate (BaSO₄) contrast agent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CTC followed by optical colonoscopy (OC) was performed on 73 patients with positive results in fecal occult blood tests. They were administrated a BaSO₄ suspension and a magnesium citrate solution for bowel preparation. Patients completed a questionnaire about the acceptability of bowel preparation. Tagging efficacy was estimated using a novel categorization system, which classified all segments into 8 categories. The accuracy of detecting protruded lesions ≥ 6 mm was calculated from the comparison of CTC and OC results, using the latter as a reference standard.

RESULTS

Tagging efficacy was good in 77.3% of colonic segments where residue was observed. The acceptability of bowel preparation for CTC was significantly higher than that for OC. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 0.778, 0.945, 0.824, and 0.929, respectively. All lesions ≥ 7 mm were successfully detected by CTC.

CONCLUSION

CTC with a reduced dose of laxative using a novel BaSO₄ contrast agent has a favorable tagging efficacy, patient acceptability, and accuracy.

"Is CT Scan more Accurate than Endoscopy in Identifying Distance from the Anal Verge for Left Sided Colon Cancer? A Comparative Cohort Analysis"

Purposes: Accurately localizing colorectal cancer during surgery may be challenging due to intraoperative limitations. In the present study, localization of left-sided colon cancer (LCC) by CT scan is compared to colonoscopy. Material and methods: Consecutive patients with LCC located by colonoscopy and CT scan and undergoing left-hemicolectomy were included. Tumor distance from the anal verge (TDAV) was calculated by both CT-scan and colonoscopy, and then compared, using as reference TDAV measured intraoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed including (1) comparison of means between all three TDAVs, (2) comparison of mean differences between all three TDAVs, (3) comparison of number of patients with a difference between endoscopic TDAV and intraoperative TDAV ≤5 cm and the number of patients with a difference between CT scan TDAV and intraoperative TDAV ≤5 cm (4) statistical relationship between either CT scan and endoscopic and intraoperative TDAVs. Results: Both CT scan and endoscopy overestimate TDAV (25.8 ± 12.5 cm and 24.6 ± 10.6 cm vs. 21.5 ± 7.4 cm, p = 0.005), but CT scan TDAV resulted as being different from intraoperative TDAV (p < 0.01). Regression analysis reported an increasing divergence of measurements with increasing values of intraoperative TDAV, which resulted greater for CT. Tumors within 5 cm of intraoperative TDAV were 22/28 (78.6%) for endoscopy, and 17/28 (60.7%) for CT (p = 0.2448). Conclusions: Accuracy of both examinations seems poor, with a mean overestimation >3 cm and a significant number of tumors found at >5 cm from preoperative evaluation. Preoperative examinations' bias increase proportionally with TDAV length, decreasing their interest especially for tumors located at a greater distance from anal verge.

Colon cancer screening with CT colonography: logistics, cost-effectiveness, efficiency and progress

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality can be significantly reduced by population screening. Several different screening methods are currently in use, and this review focuses specifically on the imaging technique computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The challenges and logistics of CTC screening, as well as the importance of test accuracy, uptake, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness will be discussed. With comparable advanced adenoma detection rates to colonoscopy (the most commonly used whole-colon investigation), CTC is a less-invasive alternative, requiring less laxative, and with the potential benefit that it permits assessment of extra colonic structures. Three large-scale European trials have contributed valuable evidence supporting the use of CTC in population screening, and highlight the importance of selecting appropriate clinical management pathways based on initial CTC findings. Future research into CTC-screening will likely focus on radiologist training and CTC quality assurance, with identification of evidence-based key performance indicators that are associated with clinically-relevant outcomes such as the incidence of post-test interval cancers (CRC occurring after a presumed negative CTC). In comparison to other CRC screening techniques, CTC offers a safe and accurate option that is particularly useful when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses which evaluate referral thresholds, the impact of extra-colonic findings and real-world uptake will provide useful information regarding the feasibility of future CTC population screening.

Cost analysis of colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography in Italy

OBJECTIVE

Unit costs of screening CT colonography (CTC) can be useful for cost-effectiveness analyses and for health care decision-making. We evaluated the unit costs of CTC as a primary screening test for colorectal cancer in the setting of a randomized trial in Italy.

METHODS

Data were collected within the randomized SAVE trial. Subjects were invited to screening CTC by mail and requested to have a pre-examination consultation. CTCs were performed with 64- and 128-slice CT scanners after reduced or full bowel preparation. Activity-based costing was used to determine unit costs per-process, per-participant to screening CTC, and per-subject with advanced neoplasia.

RESULTS

Among 5242 subjects invited to undergo screening CTC, 1312 had pre-examination consultation and 1286 ultimately underwent CTC. Among 129 subjects with a positive CTC, 126 underwent assessment colonoscopy and 67 were ultimately diagnosed with advanced neoplasia (i.e., cancer or advanced adenoma). Cost per-participant of the entire screening CTC pathway was €196.80. Average cost per-participant for the screening invitation process was €17.04 and €9.45 for the pre-examination consultation process. Average cost per-participant of the CTC execution and reading process was €146.08 and of the diagnostic assessment colonoscopy process was €24.23. Average cost per-subject with advanced neoplasia was €3777.30.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost of screening CTC was €196.80 per-participant. Our data suggest that the more relevant cost of screening CTC, amenable of intervention, is related to CTC execution and reading process.

Accuracy of Combined Computed Tomography Colonography and Dual Energy Iiodine Map Imaging for Detecting Colorectal masses using High-pitch Dual-source CT

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of combined computed tomography colonography (CTC) and dual-energy iodine map imaging for detecting colorectal masses using high-pitch dual-source CT, compared with optical colonography (OC) and histopathologic findings. Twenty-eight consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled in this study. All patients were underwent contrast-enhanced CTC acquisition using dual-energy mode and OC and pathologic examination. The size of the space-occupied mass, the CT value after contrast enhancement, and the iodine value were measured and statistically compared. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy rate, and positive predictive and negative predictive values of dual-energy contrast-enhanced CTC were calculated and compared between conventional CTC and dual-energy iodine images. The iodine value of stool was significantly lower than the colonic neoplasia (P < 0.01). The sensitivity of conventional CTC was 95.6% (95% CI = 77.9%–99.2%), combined CTC and dual-energy iodine maps imaging was 95.6% (95% CI = 77.9%–99.2%). The specificity of the two methods was 42.8% (95% CI = 15.4%–93.5%) and 100% (95% CI = 47.9%–100%; P = 0.02), respectively. Compared with optical colonography and histopathology, combined CTC and dual-energy iodine maps imaging can distinguish stool and colonic neoplasia, distinguish between benign and malignant tumors initially and improve the diagnostic accuracy of CTC for colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal Cancer: Cost-effectiveness of Colonoscopy versus CT Colonography Screening with Participation Rates and Costs

Purpose To compare the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and colonoscopy screening by using data on unit costs and participation rates from a randomized controlled screening trial in a dedicated screening setting. Materials and Methods Observed participation rates and screening costs from the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening, or COCOS, trial were used in a microsimulation model to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with colonoscopy and CT colonography screening. For both tests, the authors determined optimal age range and screening interval combinations assuming a 100% participation rate. Assuming observed participation for these combinations, the cost-effectiveness of both tests was compared. Extracolonic findings were not included because long-term follow-up data are lacking. Results The participation rates for colonoscopy and CT colonography were 21.5% (1276 of 5924 invitees) and 33.6% (982 of 2920 invitees), respectively. Colonoscopy was more cost-effective in the screening strategies with one or two lifetime screenings, whereas CT colonography was more cost-effective in strategies with more lifetime screenings. CT colonography was the preferred test for willingness-to-pay-thresholds of €3200 per QALY gained and higher, which is lower than the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000. With equal participation, colonoscopy was the preferred test independent of willingness-to-pay thresholds. The findings were robust for most of the sensitivity analyses, except with regard to relative screening costs and subsequent participation. Conclusion Because of the higher participation rates, CT colonography screening for colorectal cancer is more cost-effective than colonoscopy screening. The implementation of CT colonography screening requires previous satisfactory resolution to the question as to how best to deal with extracolonic findings. ^© RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Optical colonoscopy (OC) is the first choice of investigation for assessing the state of the colon and it is excellent for CRC screening. Newer technologies such as computed tomography colonography (CTC) may also be useful in CRC screening. This systematic review compares the benefits of CTC and OC for CRC screening. This review includes all the available randomized clinical trials comparing CTC and OC for CRC screening in asymptomatic patients. Three studies were included in the systematic review and were submitted for meta-analysis. In the analysis of participation rates, only 2,333 of 8,104 (29%) patients who were invited for screening underwent the CTC, and only 1,486 of the 7,310 (20%) patients who were invited for screening underwent OC. The absolute risk difference in participation rate in the two procedures was 0.1 (95% CI, 0.05–0.14) in favor of CTC. In the analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) detection rates, 2,357 patients undergoing CTC and 1,524 patients undergoing OC were included. Of these, 135 patients (5.7%) who underwent a CTC and 130 patients (8.5%) who underwent an OC were diagnosed with ACN. The absolute risk difference in ACN detection rate in the two procedure types was −0.02 (with a 95% CI between −0.04 and −0.00) in favor of OC. CTC is an option for CRC screening in asymptomatic patients. However, as CTC was inferior in detecting ACN, it should not replace OC, which remains the gold standard.

Post-imaging colorectal cancer or interval cancer rates after CT colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

CT colonography is highly sensitive for colorectal cancer, but interval or post-imaging colorectal cancer rates (diagnosis of cancer after initial negative CT colonography) are unknown, as are their underlying causes. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of post-CT colonography and post-imaging colorectal cancer rates and causes to address this gap in understanding.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomised, cohort, cross-sectional, or case-control studies published between Jan 1, 1994, and Feb 28, 2017, using CT colonography done according to international consensus standards with the aim of detecting cancer or polyps, and reporting post-imaging colorectal cancer rates or sufficient data to allow their calculation. We excluded studies in which all CT colonographies were done because of incomplete colonoscopy or if CT colonography was done with knowledge of colonoscopy findings. We contacted authors of component studies for additional data where necessary for retrospective CT colonography image review and causes for each post-imaging colorectal cancer. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the study reports. Our primary outcome was prevalence of post-imaging colorectal cancer 36 months after CT colonography. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled post-imaging colorectal cancer rates, expressed using the total number of cancers and total number of CT colonographies as denominators, and per 1000 person-years. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016042437.

FINDINGS

2977 articles were screened and 12 studies were eligible for analysis. These studies reported data for 19 867 patients (aged 18-96 years; of 11 590 with sex data available, 6532 [56%] were female) between March, 2002, and May, 2015. At a mean of 34 months' follow-up (range 3-128·4 months), CT colonography detected 643 colorectal cancers. 29 post-imaging colorectal cancers were subsequently diagnosed. The pooled post-imaging colorectal cancer rate was 4·42 (95% CI 3·03-6·42) per 100 cancers detected, corresponding to 1·61 (1·11-2·33) post-imaging colorectal cancers per 1000 CT colonographies or 0·64 (0·44-0·92) post-imaging colorectal cancers per 1000 person-years. Heterogeneity was low (I²=0%). 17 (61%) of 28 post-imaging colorectal cancers were attributable to perceptual error and were visible in retrospect.

INTERPRETATION

CT colonography does not lead to an excess of post-test cancers relative to colonoscopy within 3-5 years, and the low 5-year post-imaging colorectal cancer rate confirms that the recommended screening interval of 5 years is safe. Since most post-imaging colorectal cancers arise from perceptual errors, radiologist training and quality assurance could help to reduce post-imaging colorectal cancer rates.

FUNDING

St Mark's Hospital Foundation and the UK National Institute for Health Research via the UCL/UCLH Biomedical Research Centre.

Accuracy of Preoperative Local Staging of Primary Colorectal Cancer by Using Computed Tomography: Reappraisal Based on Data Collected at a Highly Organized Cancer Center

Purpose

In patients with colorectal cancer, preoperative staging using various imaging technologies is important for establishing the treatment plan and predicting the prognosis. Although computed tomography (CT) has been used most widely, the versatility of CT accuracy was primarily because of the lack of specialization. In this study, we aimed to identify whether any advancement in abdominal CT accuracy in the prediction of local staging has occurred.

Methods

Between December 2014 and November 2015, patients with colorectal cancer were retrospectively enrolled. All CT findings were retrospectively reported. A total of 285 patients were included, and their retrospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed, focusing on a comparison between preoperative and postoperative staging.

Results

The overall prediction accuracy of the T stage was 55.1%, with overstaging occurring in 63 (22.1%) and understaging in 65 patients (22.8%). The sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% and 68.4%, respectively. The overall prediction accuracy of the N stage was 54.7%, with overstaging occurring in 89 (31.2%) and understaging in 40 patients (14.1%). The sensitivity and specificity were 71.9% and 63.2%, respectively. The CT accuracies by pathologic stage were 0%, 62.2%, 25.3%, and 81.2% for stages 0 (Tis N0), I, II, and III, respectively.

Conclusion

CT has good sensitivity for detecting colon cancers with tumor invasion beyond the bowel wall. However, detection of nodal involvement using CT is unreliable. In our opinion, abdominal CT alone has limitations in predicting the local staging of colorectal cancer, and additional technologies, such as CT plus positron emission tomography and/or colonography, will improve its accuracy.

Colorectal cancer, screening and primary care: A mini literature review

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common health problem, representing the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide and causing a significant burden in terms of morbidity and mortality, with annual deaths estimated at 700000. The western way of life, that is being rapidly adopted in many regions of the world, is a well discussed risk factor for CRC and could be targeted in terms of primary prevention. Furthermore, the relatively slow development of this cancer permits drastic reduction of incidence and mortality through secondary prevention. These facts underlie primary care physicians (PCPs) being assigned a key role in health strategies that enhance prevention and prompt diagnosis. Herein, we review the main topics of CRC in the current literature, in order to better understand its pathogenesis, risk and protective factors, as well as screening techniques. Furthermore, we discuss preventive and screening policies to combat CRC and the crucial role served by PCPs in their successful implementation. Relevant articles were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE and through manual searches of reference lists.

Detection of Four Distinct Volatile Indicators of Colorectal Cancer using Functionalized Titania Nanotubular Arrays

Screening of colorectal cancer is crucial for early stage diagnosis and treatment. Detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) of the metabolome present in exhaled breath is a promising approach to screen colorectal cancer (CRC). Various forms of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that show the definitive signature for the different diseases including cancers are present in exhale breathe. Among all the reported CRC VOCs, cyclohexane, methylcyclohexane, 1,3-dimethyl- benzene and decanal are identified as the prominent ones that can be used as the signature for CRC screening. In the present investigation, detection of the four prominent VOCs related to CRC is explored using functionalized titania nanotubular arrays (TNAs)-based sensor. These signature biomarkers are shown to be detected using nickel-functionalized TNA as an electrochemical sensor. The sensing mechanism is based on the electrochemical interaction of nickel-functionalized nanotubes with signature biomarkers. A detailed mechanism of the sensor response is also presented.

Comparing CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomised trial within a population-based screening programme

IMPORTANCE AND AIMS

The role of CT colonography (CTC) as a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test is uncertain. The aim of our trial was to compare participation and detection rate (DR) with sigmoidoscopy (flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS)) and CTC in a screening setting.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted two randomised clinical trials (RCTs). (1) Participation RCT: individuals, aged 58 years, living in Turin (Italy), were randomly assigned to be invited to FS or CTC screening; (2) detection RCT: residents in northern Italy, aged 58-60, giving their consent to recruitment, were randomly allocated to CTC or FS. Polyps ≥6 mm at CTC, or 'high-risk' distal lesions at FS, were referred for colonoscopy (TC).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participation rate (proportion of invitees examined); DR of advanced adenomas or CRC (advanced neoplasia (AN)).

RESULTS

Participation was 30.4% (298/980) for CTC and 27.4% (267/976) for FS (relative risk (RR) 1.1; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29). Among men, participation was higher with CTC than with FS (34.1% vs 26.5%, p=0.011). In the detection RCT, 2673 subjects had FS and 2595 had CTC: the AN DR was 4.8% (127/2673, including 9 CRCs) with FS and 5.1% (133/2595, including 10 CRCs) with CTC (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.37). Distal AN DR was 3.9% (109/2673) with FS and 2.9% (76/2595) with CTC (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96); proximal AN DR was 1.2% (34/2595) for FS vs 2.7% (69/2595) for CTC (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.37 to 3.10).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Participation and DR for FS and CTC were comparable. AN DR was twice as high in the proximal colon and lower in the distal colon with CTC than with FS. Men were more likely to participate in CTC screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01739608; Pre-results.

Development and validation of a preoperative prediction model for colorectal cancer T-staging based on MDCT images and clinical information

Objectives

This study aimed to establish and evaluate the efficacy of a prediction model for colorectal cancer T-staging.

Results

T-staging was positively correlated with the level of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), expression of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), wall deformity, blurred outer edges, fat infiltration, infiltration into the surrounding tissue, tumor size and wall thickness. Age, location, enhancement rate and enhancement homogeneity were negatively correlated with T-staging. The predictive results of the model were consistent with the pathological gold standard, and the kappa value was 0.805. The total accuracy of staging improved from 51.04% to 86.98% with the proposed model.

Materials and Methods

The clinical, imaging and pathological data of 611 patients with colorectal cancer (419 patients in the training group and 192 patients in the validation group) were collected. A spearman correlation analysis was used to validate the relationship among these factors and pathological T-staging. A prediction model was trained with the random forest algorithm. T staging of the patients in the validation group was predicted by both prediction model and traditional method. The consistency, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) were used to compare the efficacy of the two methods.

Conclusions

The newly established comprehensive model can improve the predictive efficiency of preoperative colorectal cancer T-staging.

Prevalence and risk factors for post-investigation colorectal cancer ("interval cancer") after computed tomographic colonography: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and important disease. There are different tests for diagnosis, one of which is computed tomographic colonography (CTC). No test is perfect, and patients with normal CTC may subsequently develop CRC (either because it was overlooked originally, or because it has developed in the interim). This is termed post-investigation colorectal cancer (PICRC) or "interval cancer". How frequently this occurs after CTC is not known. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to use the primary literature to estimate the PICRC rate after CTC, and explore associated factors.

METHODS

Primary studies reporting post-investigation colorectal cancer (PICRC) rates after CTC will be identified from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases. Peer-reviewed studies published after 1994 (the year CTC was introduced) will be included and the rate of PICRC within 36 months of CTC recorded. Data will be extracted from selected studies for a random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity, risk of bias and publication bias will be assessed, and exploratory analysis will examine factors associated with higher PICRC rates in the literature.

CONCLUSION

PICRC rates are the ultimate benchmark of diagnostic quality for colonic investigations. This systematic review and meta-analysis will identify and synthesise evidence to determine PICRC rates after CTC and explore factors that may contribute to higher rates.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (registration number CRD42016042437 ).

Appearances of screen-detected versus symptomatic colorectal cancers at CT colonography

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the morphology, radiological stage, conspicuity, and computer-assisted detection (CAD) characteristics of colorectal cancers (CRC) detected by computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in screening and symptomatic populations.

METHODS

Two radiologists independently analyzed CTC images from 133 patients diagnosed with CRC in (a) two randomized trials of symptomatic patients (35 patients with 36 tumours) and (b) a screening program using fecal occult blood testing (FOBt; 98 patients with 100 tumours), measuring tumour length, volume, morphology, radiological stage, and subjective conspicuity. A commercial CAD package was applied to both datasets. We compared CTC characteristics between screening and symptomatic populations with multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Screen-detected CRC were significantly smaller (mean 3.0 vs 4.3 cm, p < 0.001), of lower volume (median 9.1 vs 23.2 cm3, p < 0.001) and more frequently polypoid (34/100, 34 % vs. 5/36, 13.9 %, p = 0.02) than symptomatic CRC. They were of earlier stage than symptomatic tumours (OR = 0.17, 95 %CI 0.07-0.41, p < 0.001), and were judged as significantly less conspicuous (mean conspicuity 54.1/100 vs. 72.8/100, p < 0.001). CAD detection was significantly lower for screen-detected (77.4 %; 95 %CI 67.9-84.7 %) than symptomatic CRC (96.9 %; 95 %CI 83.8-99.4 %, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Screen-detected CRC are significantly smaller, more frequently polypoid, subjectively less conspicuous, and less likely to be identified by CAD than those in symptomatic patients.

KEY POINTS

• Screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRC) are significantly smaller than symptomatic CRC. • Screening cases are significantly less conspicuous to radiologists than symptomatic tumours. • Screen-detected CRC have different morphology compared to symptomatic tumours (more polypoid, fewer annular). • A commercial computer-aided detection (CAD) system was significantly less likely to note screen-detected CRC.

Sensitivity of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for advanced colorectal neoplasms: a large-scale analysis of 7505 asymptomatic screening individuals

BACKGROUND

The sensitivity of 2-[¹⁸F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for advanced colorectal neoplasms among healthy subjects is not yet fully understood. The present study aimed to clarify the sensitivity by analyzing large-scale data from an asymptomatic screening population.

METHODS

A total of 7505 asymptomatic screenees who underwent both FDG-PET and colonoscopy at our Cancer Screening Division between February 2004 and March 2013 were analyzed. FDG-PET and colonoscopy were performed on consecutive days, and each examination was interpreted in a blinded fashion. The results of the two examinations were compared for each of the divided six colonic segments, with those from colonoscopy being set as the reference. The relationships between the sensitivity of FDG-PET and clinicopathological features of advanced neoplasms were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-one advanced neoplasms, including 24 invasive cancers, were detected in 262 individuals. Thirteen advanced neoplasms (advanced adenomas) were excluded from the analysis because of the coexistence of lesions in the same colonic segment. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of FDG-PET for advanced neoplasms were 16.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 12.7-21.8 %], 99.3 % (95 % CI 99.2-99.4 %), 13.5 % (95 % CI 10.1-17.6 %), and 99.4 % (95 % CI 99.3-99.5 %), respectively. The sensitivity was lower for lesions with less advanced histological grade, of smaller size, and flat-type morphology, and for those located in the proximal part of the colon.

CONCLUSIONS

FDG-PET is believed to be difficult to use as a primary screening tool in population-based colorectal cancer screening because of its low sensitivity for advanced neoplasms. Even when it is used in opportunistic cancer screening, the limit of its sensitivity should be considered.

Accuracy of First- and Second-Generation Colon Capsules in Endoscopic Detection of Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a noninvasive technique used to explore the colon without sedation or air insufflation. A second-generation capsule was recently developed to improve accuracy of detection, and clinical use has expanded globally. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of CCE in detecting colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other databases from 1966 through 2015 for studies that compared accuracy of colonoscopy with histologic evaluation with CCE. The risk of bias within each study was ascertained according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy in Systematic Reviews recommendations. Per-patient accuracy values were calculated for polyps, overall and for first-generation (CCE-1) and second-generation (CCE-2) capsules. We analyzed data by using forest plots, the I² statistic to calculate heterogeneity, and meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies provided data from 2420 patients (1128 for CCE-1 and 1292 for CCE-2). CCE-2 and CCE-1 detected polyps >6 mm with 86% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 82%-89%) and 58% sensitivity (95% CI, 44%-70%), respectively, and 88.1% specificity (95% CI, 74.2%-95.0%) and 85.7% specificity (95% CI, 80.2%-90.0%), respectively. CCE-2 and CCE-1 detected polyps >10 mm with 87% sensitivity (95% CI, 81%-91%) and 54% sensitivity (95% CI, 29%-77%), respectively, and 95.3% specificity (95% CI, 91.5%-97.5%) and 97.4% specificity (95% CI, 96.0%-98.3%), respectively. CCE-2 identified all 11 invasive cancers detected by colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity in detection of polyps >6 mm and >10 mm increased substantially between development of first-generation and second-generation colon capsules. High specificity values for detection of polyps by CCE-2 seem to be achievable with a 10-mm cutoff and in a screening setting.

CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials

CT colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive radiological investigation of the colon. Robust evidence indicates that CTC is safe, well tolerated and highly accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and large polyps, which are the targets of screening. Randomized controlled trials were carried out in Europe to evaluate CTC as the primary test for population screening of CRC in comparison with faecal immunochemical test (FIT), sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were participation rate and detection rate. Participation rate for screening CTC was in the range of 25-34%, whereas the detection rate of CTC for CRC and advanced adenoma was in the range of 5.1-6.1%. Participation for CTC screening was lower than that for FIT, similar to that for sigmoidoscopy and higher than that for colonoscopy. The detection rate of CTC was higher than that of one FIT round, similar to that of sigmoidoscopy and lower than that of colonoscopy. However, owing to the higher participation rate in CTC screening with respect to colonoscopy screening, the detection rates per invitee of CTC and colonoscopy would be comparable. These results justify consideration of CTC in organized screening programmes for CRC. However, assessment of other factors such as polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral, management of extracolonic findings and, most importantly, the forthcoming results of cost-effectiveness analyses are crucial to define the role of CTC in primary screening.

CT Colonography: an update on current and future indications

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive, patient-friendly, safe and robust colonic imaging modality. The technique is standardized and consolidated evidence from the literature shows that the diagnostic performances for the detection of colorectal cancer and large polyps are similar to colonoscopy (CS) and largely superior to alternative radiological exams, like barium enema. A clear understanding of the exact role of CTC will be beneficial to maximize the benefits and minimize the potential sources of frustration or disappointment for both referring clinicians and patients. Incomplete, failed, or unfeasible CS; investigation of elderly, and frail patients and assessment of diverticular disease are major indications supported by evidence-based data and agreed by the endoscopists. The use of CTC for symptomatic patients, colorectal cancer screening and colonic surveillance is still under debate and, thus, recommended only if CS is unfeasible or refused by patients.

Imaging Procedures for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Radiological imaging plays an important role in the setting of staging, follow-up, and imaging-guided treatment of colorectal carcinoma (CRC).

METHODS

This review aims to summarize the current state of the art of the different radiological imaging procedures in CRC including an overview over recently published national and European guidelines and consensus statements concerning the imaging of CRC patients.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Radiological imaging is widely embedded in national and international guidelines, and structured reporting is recommended.

Computed tomography colonography for the practicing radiologist: A review of current recommendations on methodology and clinical indications

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents one of the most relevant causes of morbidity and mortality in Western societies. CRC screening is actually based on faecal occult blood testing, and optical colonoscopy still remains the gold standard screening test for cancer detection. However, computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) constitutes a reliable, minimally-invasive method to rapidly and effectively evaluate the entire colon for clinically relevant lesions. Furthermore, even if the benefits of its employment in CRC mass screening have not fully established yet, CT colonography may represent a reasonable alternative screening test in patients who cannot undergo or refuse colonoscopy. Therefore, the purpose of our review is to illustrate the most updated recommendations on methodology and the current clinical indications of CT colonography, according to the data of the existing relevant literature.

The potential of imaging techniques as a screening tool for colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

Imaging may be promising for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, since it has test characteristics comparable with colonoscopy but is less invasive. We aimed to assess the potential of CT colonography (CTC) and MR colonography (MRC) in terms of (cost-effectiveness) using the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer model.

METHODS

We compared several CTC and MRC strategies with 5- or 10-yearly screening intervals with no screening, 10-yearly colonoscopy screening and biennial faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. We assumed trial-based participation rates in the base-case analyses and varied the rates in sensitivity analyses. Incremental lifetime costs and health effects were estimated from a healthcare perspective.

RESULTS

The health gain of CTC and MRC was similar and ranged from 0.031 to 0.048 life-year gained compared with no screening, for 2-5 screening rounds. Lifetime costs per person for MRC strategies were €60-110 higher than those for CTC strategies with an equal number of screening rounds. All imaging-based strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. FIT screening was the dominant screening strategy, leading to most LYG and highest cost-savings. Compared with three rounds of colonoscopy screening, CTC with five rounds was found to be cost-effective in an incremental analysis of imaging strategies. Assumptions on screening participation have a major influence on the ordering of strategies in terms of costs and effects.

CONCLUSION

CTC and MRC have potential for CRC screening, compared with no screening and compared with three rounds of 10-yearly colonoscopy screening. When taking FIT screening as the reference, imaging is not cost-effective. Participation is an important driver of effectiveness and cost estimates.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This is the first study to assess the cost-effectiveness of MRC screening for CRC.

Different modalities for colorectal cancer screening: experiences in The Netherlands so far

In 2014, a nation-wide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program was launched in The Netherlands. Every 2 years, men and women aged 55–75 years will be invited to participate in fecal immunochemical test screening. Participants with a positive test result will be scheduled for colonoscopy. Starting from 2006, screening pilots have been performed to ascertain the choice of an optimal screening modality, population acceptance, logistics and cost effectiveness, in order to ensure that a screening program with maximal benefits and the least amount of harms was offered to the Dutch population. In this overview, we will discuss the results of Dutch CRC screening pilots in which different screening modalities were studied, the preparations made before the launch of the nation-wide screening program, and finally the initial results and lessons learned so far from the Dutch CRC screening program.

Colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer had a low incidence several decades ago. However, it has become a predominant cancer and now accounts for approximately 10% of cancer-related mortality in western countries. The 'rise' of colorectal cancer in developed countries can be attributed to the increasingly ageing population, unfavourable modern dietary habits and an increase in risk factors, such as smoking, low physical exercise and obesity. New treatments for primary and metastatic colorectal cancer have emerged, providing additional options for patients; these treatments include laparoscopic surgery for primary disease, more-aggressive resection of metastatic disease (such as liver and pulmonary metastases), radiotherapy for rectal cancer, and neoadjuvant and palliative chemotherapies. However, these new treatment options have had limited impact on cure rates and long-term survival. For these reasons, and the recognition that colorectal cancer is long preceded by a polypoid precursor, screening programmes have gained momentum. This Primer provides an overview of the current state of the art of knowledge on the epidemiology and mechanisms of colorectal cancer, as well as on diagnosis and treatment.

Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes

Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks third among the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide, with wide geographical variation in incidence and mortality across the world. Despite proof that screening can decrease CRC incidence and mortality, CRC screening is only offered to a small proportion of the target population worldwide. Throughout the world there are widespread differences in CRC screening implementation status and strategy. Differences can be attributed to geographical variation in CRC incidence, economic resources, healthcare structure and infrastructure to support screening such as the ability to identify the target population at risk and cancer registry availability. This review highlights issues to consider when implementing a CRC screening programme and gives a worldwide overview of CRC burden and the current status of screening programmes, with focus on international differences.

Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality in the Western world. Advances in surgical and medical management have led to improved outcomes; however, the prognosis of CRC is often poor when detected at a symptomatic stage. Most cases of CRC develop over years from removable well-defined precursor lesions, and asymptomatic, curable disease may be detected by convenient noninvasive tests. These features make CRC a suitable candidate for screening, and several options are available. This article outlines the evidence for established CRC screening tests along with a discussion on newer tests and ongoing research.