CT Colonography to exclude colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients

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.

World Endoscopy Organization Consensus Statements on Post-Colonoscopy and Post-Imaging Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)- some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers [PICRCs]).

METHODS

A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon.

CONCLUSIONS

A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients.

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.

Tracking eye gaze during interpretation of endoluminal three-dimensional CT colonography: visual perception of experienced and inexperienced readers

PURPOSE

To identify and compare key stages of the visual process in experienced and inexperienced readers and to examine how these processes are used to search a moving three-dimensional ( 3D three-dimensional ) image and their relationship to false-negative errors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board research ethics approval was granted to use anonymized computed tomographic (CT) colonographic data from previous studies and to obtain eye-tracking data from volunteers. Sixty-five radiologists (27 experienced, 38 inexperienced) interpreted 23 endoluminal 3D three-dimensional CT colonographic videos. Eye movements were recorded by using eye tracking with a desk-mounted tracker. Readers indicated when they saw a polyp by clicking a computer mouse. Polyp location and boundary on each video frame were quantified and gaze data were related to the polyp boundary for each individual reader and case. Predefined metrics were quantified and used to describe and compare visual search patterns between experienced and inexperienced readers by using multilevel modeling.

RESULTS

Time to first pursuit was significantly shorter in experienced readers (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% confidence interval: 1.04, 1.44]; P = .017) but other metrics were not significantly different. Regardless of expertise, metrics such as assessment, identification period, and pursuit times were extended in videos where polyps were visible on screen for longer periods of time. In 97% (760 of 787) of observations, readers correctly pursued polyps.

CONCLUSION

Experienced readers had shorter time to first eye pursuit, but many other characteristics of eye tracking were similar between experienced and inexperienced readers. Readers pursued polyps in 97% of observations, which indicated that errors during interpretation of 3D three-dimensional CT colonography in this study occurred in either the discovery or the recognition phase, but rarely in the scanning phase of radiologic image inspection.

Extracolonic findings (ECF) on CT colonography (CTC) in patients presenting with colorectal symptoms

BACKGROUND

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is now an established method for imaging the colon and rectum in the screening and symptomatic setting. Additional benefit of CTC is the ability to assess for extracolonic findings especially in patients presenting with colorectal symptoms.

PURPOSE

To determine prevalence of extracolonic findings (ECF) in symptomatic patients undergoing CTC and determine accuracy of CTC for exclusion of significant abdominal disease and extracolonic malignancy (ECM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 1359 unenhanced prone and postcontrast supine CTC studies were performed between March 2002 and December 2007. ECF were retrospectively classified according to C-RADS criteria into E1 to E4 findings. For ECM, a gold standard of clinical and/or radiological follow-up supplemented with data from the regional cancer registry with a median follow-up of 42 months was created. Sensitivity and negative predictive values for ECM was calculated.

RESULTS

Following exclusions, 1177 CTCs were analyzed. Of 1423 extracolonic findings reported, 328/1423 (23%) E3 and 100/1423 (7%) E4 (including six eventual FP studies) findings were identified. Thirty-two ECMs were confirmed following further investigations. Seven further small ECMs were detected during the entire follow-up, of which two were potentially visible in retrospect (false-negative studies). Additional tests were generated from 55/1177 (4.7%) studies. Sensitivity and negative predictive value for ECM was 94.1% (95% CI 78.9-98.9%) and 99.8% (95% CI 99.3-99.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

One in 37 patients were found to have an ECM. Two potentially detectable cancers were missed. Only a small proportion of patients underwent additional work-up.