Perforation rate in CT colonography: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis

Canadian Association of Radiologists Practice Guidelines for Computed Tomography Colonography

Colon cancer is the third most common malignancy in Canada. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) provides a creditable and validated option for colon screening and assessment of known pathology in patients for whom conventional colonoscopy is contraindicated or where patients self-select to use imaging as their primary modality for initial colonic assessment. This updated guideline aims to provide a toolkit for both experienced imagers (and technologists) and for those considering launching this examination in their practice. There is guidance for reporting, optimal exam preparation, tips for problem solving to attain high quality examinations in challenging scenarios as well as suggestions for ongoing maintenance of competence. We also provide insight into the role of artificial intelligence and the utility of CTC in tumour staging of colorectal cancer. The appendices provide more detailed guidance into bowel preparation and reporting templates as well as useful information on polyp stratification and management strategies. Reading this guideline should equip the reader with the knowledge base to perform colonography but also provide an unbiased overview of its role in colon screening compared with other screening options.

Single CT colonography versus three rounds of faecal immunochemical test for population-based screening of colorectal cancer (SAVE): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening is recommended for people aged 50-75 years, but the optimal screening test and strategy are not established. We aimed to compare single CT colonography versus three faecal immunochemical test (FIT) rounds for population-based screening of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

This randomised controlled trial was done in Florence, Italy. Adults aged 54-65 years, never screened for colorectal cancer, were randomly assigned (1:2) by simple randomisation and invited by post to either a single CT colonography (CT colonography group) or three FIT rounds (FIT group; each round was done 2 years apart). Exclusion criteria included previous colorectal cancer, advanced adenoma, or inflammatory bowel disease, colonoscopy within the last 5 years or FIT within the last 2 years, and severe medical conditions. Participants who had a colonic mass or at least one polyp of 6 mm or more in diameter in the CT colonography group and those who had at least 20 μg haemoglobin per g faeces in the FIT group were referred for work-up optical colonoscopy. The primary outcome was detection rate for advanced neoplasia. Outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-screen and per-protocol populations. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01651624.

FINDINGS

From Dec 12, 2012, to March 5, 2018, 14 981 adults were randomised and invited to screening interventions. 5242 (35·0%) individuals (2809 [53·6%] women and 2433 [46·4%] men) were assigned to the CT colonography group and 9739 (65·0%) individuals (5208 [53·5%] women and 4531 [46·5%] men) were assigned to the FIT group. Participation in the screening intervention was lower in the CT colonography group (1286 [26·7%] of the 4825 eligible invitees) than it was for the FIT group (6027 [64·9%] of the 9288 eligible invitees took part in at least one screening round, 4573 [49·2%] in at least two rounds, and 3105 [33·4%] in all three rounds). The detection rate for advanced neoplasia of CT colonography was significantly lower than the detection rate after three FIT rounds (1·4% [95% CI 1·1-1·8] vs 2·0% [1·7-2·3]; p=0·0094) in the modified intention-to-screen analysis, but the detection rate was significantly higher in the CT colonography group than in the FIT group (5·2% [95% CI 4·1-6·6] vs 3·1% [2·7-3·6]; p=0·0002]) in the per-protocol analysis. Referral rate to work-up optical colonoscopy (the secondary outcome of the trial) was significantly lower for the CT colonography group than for the FIT group after three FIT rounds (2·7% [95% CI 2·2-3·1] vs 7·5% [7·0-8·1]; p<0·0001) in the modified intention-to-screen analysis, whereas no significant difference was observed in the per-protocol analysis (10·0% [8·4-11·8] vs 11·6% [10·8-12·4]). No major complications were observed in the CT colonography group after screening and work-up optical colonoscopy, whereas three cases of bleeding were reported in the FIT group after work-up optical colonoscopy (two after the first FIT and one after the second FIT).

INTERPRETATION

Greater participation makes FIT more efficient than single CT colonography for detection of advanced neoplasia in population screening for colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, higher detection rate in participants and fewer work-up colonoscopies are possible advantages of CT colonography as a screening tool, which might deserve consideration in future trials.

FUNDING

Government of Tuscany and Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze Foundation.

TRANSLATION

For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Detection methods of synchronous colorectal lesions in proximal colon for patients with obstructive colorectal cancer: a literature review

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer holds a high morbidity and mortality rate. As a common method for colorectal cancer detection, colonoscopy has difficulty in passing through the malignant stenosis in patients with obstructive colorectal cancer, which results in incomplete detection and missed diagnosis. The missed synchronous lesions increase the risk of metachronous cancer. Therefore, detecting proximal synchronous lesions in patients with obstructive colorectal cancer should be appreciated before operation.

AREA COVERED

This review evaluates related literature, aiming at providing clinicians with more ideas and attention for detecting proximal synchronous lesions in patients with obstructive colorectal cancer.

EXPERT OPINION

In patients with obstructive colorectal cancer, missed diagnosis of lesions proximal to the obstruction may lead to metachronous colorectal cancer. Except for preoperative colonoscopy which is difficult to pass through malignant stenosis, other methods that can evaluate proximal colon segment are critical. This article introduced several preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative measures for synchronous lesions detection. The choice of methods should base on patients' conditions, aiming at a high diagnostic yield and low risk. Early detection and resection of synchronous lesions in the proximal section of malignant obstruction are expected to minimize the risk of metachronous colorectal cancer and even effect follow-up treatment strategy, which deserves the attention of clinicians.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population.

METHODS

Eight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY (versus no screening) and €3100/QALY (versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy (versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening.

CONCLUSION

At 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history.Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years.Colonoscopy every 3-5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.

Is there need for routine CT colonography after CT-verified uncomplicated diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon?

Background

Following an episode of acute diverticulitis, surgical guidelines commonly advise routine colonic follow-up to rule out underlying malignancy. However, as a CT of the abdomen is frequently performed during clinical work-up, the routine need for colonic follow-up has become debated.

Purpose

To evaluate the need for routine CT colonography after an episode of CT-verified uncomplicated sigmoid diverticulitis to rule out underlying colorectal malignancy.

Material and methods

This study retrospectively evaluated 312 patients routinely referred to colonic evaluation by CT colonography following an episode of acute diverticulitis. Patients were excluded if lacking diagnostic CT of the abdomen at time of diagnosis, if presenting with atypical colonic involvement, or if CT findings were suggestive of complicated disease (e.g., abscess or perforation). CT colonography exams were routinely reviewed by experienced abdominal radiology consultants on the day of the procedure. If significant polyps were detected, or if colorectal malignancy could not be excluded, patients were referred to same-day optical colonoscopy. For these patients, medical records were reviewed for optical colonoscopy results and histology reports if applicable.

Results

Among 223 patients with CT-verified uncomplicated sigmoid diverticulitis, no patients were found to have underlying colorectal malignancy. 27 patients were referred to optical colonoscopy based on CT colonography findings. 18 patients consequently underwent polypectomy, all with either hyperplastic or adenomatous histology.

Conclusions

This study indicates that routine colonic evaluation by CT colonography following an episode of CT-verified uncomplicated sigmoid diverticulitis may be unwarranted, and should arguably be reserved for patients with protracted or atypical clinical course.

CT colonography's role in the COVID-19 pandemic: a safe(r), socially distanced total colon examination

Purpose

To describe the favorable procedural profile of CT colonography (CTC) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusion

Postponement of cancer screening due to COVID-19 has resulted in a backlog of individuals needing to undergo structural examination of the colon. The experience during the initial COVID-19 surge with urgent evaluation of the colon for transplant patients prior to transplant suggests that CTC can be done in a lower risk manner as compared to other structural examinations. The procedural profile of CTC is advantageous during this pandemic as maintaining social distancing and preserving healthcare supplies including PPE are of paramount importance. CTC is an important option to utilize in the screening armamentarium to allow effective screening of average risk asymptomatic individuals in the COVID-19 era.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020

1: ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 - 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colon cancer screening strategies in the context of the French national screening program

BACKGROUND

A nationwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program was set up in France from 2009 for average-risk, asymptomatic people aged 50-74 years based on an immunochemical fecal occult blood test [faecal immunochemical test (FIT)] every 2 years, followed by colonoscopy if positive. The European standard recommends a participation rate of 45% for the program to be cost-effective, yet the latest published rate in France was 34%. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives taking real-world participation rates into account.

METHODS

Eight screening strategies were compared, based either on a screening test (Guaiac or FIT testing, blood-based, stool DNA, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy) followed by full colonoscopy if positive or direct colonoscopy. A microsimulation model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness associated with each strategy.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, FIT was associated with a 14.0 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) increase of €50,520 per 1000 individuals, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3600/QALY. Only stool DNA and blood-based testing were associated with a QALY increase compared with FIT, with stool DNA weakly dominated by blood-based testing, and the latter associated with an ICER of €154,600/QALY compared with FIT. All other strategies were dominated by FIT.

CONCLUSION

FIT every 2 years appears to be the most cost-effective CRC screening strategy when taking into account a real-world participation rate of 34%.

Pearls and Pitfalls of Interpretation in CT Colonography

The accuracy of computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) requires that the radiologist be well trained in the recognition of pitfalls of interpretation. In order to achieve a high sensitivity and specificity, the interpreting radiologist must be well versed in the causes of both false-positive and false-negative results. In this article, we review the common and uncommon pitfalls of interpretation in CTC.

[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.

Utility of minimal preparation computed tomography colonography in detecting colorectal cancer in elderly and frail patients

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancers result in substantial morbidity and mortality to the Australian society each year. The usual investigation for bowel malignancy is optical colonoscopy (OC), with computed tomography colonography (CTC) used as an alternative investigation. The catharsis and colon insufflation associated with these investigations pose a higher risk in the elderly and frail. Risks include perforation, serum electrolyte disturbance and anaesthesia/sedation risks. Minimal preparation computed tomography colonography (MPCTC) eliminates these risks.

AIMS

To audit the accuracy of a MPCTC programme for the investigation of colonic masses in symptomatic elderly and frail patients.

METHODS

This paper audits a 6-year period of MPCTC in an Australian tertiary referral hospital. A total of 145 patients underwent MPCTC during the study period.

RESULTS

There were seven true positives, two false positives and two false negatives. Analysis of this population indicates a sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI 0.51-1.05), specificity of 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.01), positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.78 (95% CI 0.51-1.05) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.01). These findings are concordant with other published studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This audit confirms that minimal preparation CT colonography is a reasonable alternative to OC and CTC in detecting colorectal cancer in symptomatic elderly and frail patients, without the procedural risks inherent in more invasive investigations. For most patients, MPCTC ruled out significant colorectal carcinoma with a high NPV.

CT colonography: implementation, indications, and technical performance - a follow-up national survey

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is an accepted complement or alternative to optical colonoscopy (OC) but its implementation is incompletely analyzed, and technical performance varies between centers.

PURPOSE

To evaluate implementation, indications, and technical performance of CTC in Sweden and to evaluate compliance to international guidelines.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A structured, self-assessed questionnaire regarding implementation and technical performance of CTC was sent to all eligible radiology departments in Sweden. Eighty-six out of 89 departments replied. Comparisons were made with similar national surveys from 2004 and 2009.

RESULTS

The number of centers performing CTC gradually increased from 23 in 2004 to 77 in 2016. In parallel, centers performing barium enema (BE) examinations have decreased from 89 in 2004 to 13 in 2016. Main reasons stated for still performing BE were lack of resources regarding CTC/OC. Main reasons for not performing CTC were lack of suitable software, lack of machine/reading time, and lack of experience. The majority of centers follow international CTC guidelines. An important exception is fecal tagging, which was implemented in only 63% of the centers. Incomplete OC remains a major indication for CTC, while preoperative CTC in colorectal cancer and follow-up after diverticulitis have emerged as new indications.

CONCLUSION

CTC today is well implemented in routine healthcare but still lacking in capacity. Indications have expanded over time, and most departments perform "state of the art" CTC, although fecal tagging is incompletely implemented.

Computed tomography colonography: a new threat to the spleen?

We present a rare and previously undocumented potential complication of computed tomography (CT) colonography. CT colonography is a commonly performed investigation with a relatively low risk of complications. While splenic injury is a well-documented complication after colonoscopy, it has never been reported following CT colonography. A 64-year-old man presented with severe abdominal pain four hours after CT colonography. CT of his abdomen and pelvis revealed appearances consistent with intra-abdominal bleeding secondary to splenic injury. The patient immediately underwent an emergency laparotomy and splenectomy, revealing a grade III splenic capsular tear. Histological evaluation of splenic tissue showed normal morphology with no evidence of malignancy. While the aetiology of the patient's splenic injury remains uncertain, normal histopathology and the chronology of events represents an almost certain link to CT colonography.

Computed Tomography Colonography: Pearls and Pitfalls

This article serves as a practical reference to optimize the performance of computed tomography colonography in the detection of colorectal neoplasia. A specific protocol in use at 2 US university programs as well as defined interpretation strategies will be described. With this framework in place, various clinical pearls as well as pitfalls to avoid will be a major focus of this article.

Imaging the operated colon using water-enema multidetector CT, with emphasis on surgical anastomoses

Water-enema multidetector CT (WE-MDCT) provides a detailed multiplanar visualisation of mural, intra- and extraluminal abnormalities of the large bowel, relying on preliminary bowel cleansing, retrograde luminal distension, pharmacological hypotonisation and intravenous contrast enhancement. In patients with a history of colorectal surgery for either carcinoma or Crohn's disease (CD), WE-MDCT may also be performed via a colostomy, which allows depicting the anatomy and position of the residual large bowel and evaluates the calibre, length, mural and extraluminal features of luminal strictures. Therefore, WE-MDCT may prove useful as a complementary technique after incomplete or inconclusive colonoscopy to assess features and suspected abnormalities of the surgical anastomosis, particularly when endoscopic or surgical interventions are being planned. This pictorial essay presents the WE-MDCT technique and pitfalls, the expected appearances after different colic surgeries and the imaging features of benign anastomotic disorders (fibrotic stricture, kinking, inflammatory ulcer) and of locally recurrent tumours and CD.

TEACHING POINTS

• Water-enema multidetector CT (WE-MDCT) effectively visualises the operated colon • Complementary to endoscopy, WE-MDCT may helpfully depict abnormalities of surgical anastomoses • WE-MDCT allows assessment of strictures' features and abnormalities of the upstream bowel • Technical pitfalls, normal postsurgical findings and benign anastomotic disorders are presented • WE-MDCT allows detecting relapsing Crohn's disease, recurrent and metachronous tumours.

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.

Review of radiological screening programmes for breast, lung and pancreatic malignancy

The premise of medical screening is to identify clinically occult disease, facilitating intervention at an early stage with the intention of improving prognosis. Identifying solid organ malignancy before nodal or distal metastases have occurred unanimously offers the best chance of successful radical treatment, thus there is clearly a potential significant mortality benefit for successful oncological screening programmes. However, the negative consequences of screening have to be considered, particularly the impact of intervening in asymptomatic populations. Diagnostic radiology has an invaluable ability to non-invasively detect disease and has developed an essential role in several oncological screening programmes with new programmes emerging. These include the established mammography screening programme for breast carcinoma, the emerging CT screening programme for lung carcinoma and a new proposed radiological screening programme for pancreatic carcinoma. Results from published randomized controlled trials analysing the benefits of radiological screening have been convoluted and conflicting. Cancer screening remains a widely contested topic and it is a challenge for both radiologist and clinician to assess the risks and benefits at both a population and individual patient level. In this article, we discuss radiological screening and analyse the current literature on these programmes, with evaluation of recently published studies and ongoing trials.

CTC technique: methods to ensure an optimal exam

CT colonography (CTC) has demonstrated equivalent accuracy to optical colonoscopy in the detection of clinically relevant polyps and tumors but this is only possible when technique is optimized. The two most important features of a high-quality CTC are a well-prepared colon and a distended colon. This article will discuss the dietary, bowel preparation, and fecal/fluid tagging options to best prepare the colon. Strategies to optimally distend the colon will also be discussed. CT scan techniques including patient positioning and radiation dose optimization will be reviewed. With proper technique which includes sufficient bowel preparation, fecal/fluid tagging, bowel distension, and optimized scan technique, high-quality CTC examinations should become more feasible, easier to interpret, and more consistently reproducible leading to increased utilization and increased referrals.

Practical gastrointestinal investigation of iron deficiency anaemia

About 10% of oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (OGDs) and colonoscopies are done for investigation of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) . Much of the existing guidance on investigation of IDA predates CRC screening, which has driven significant improvements in colonoscopy quality and completion rates, as well as a reduction in Helicobacter pylori prevalence and increase in PPI usage, and therefore probably needs re-consideration. New investigations, e.g. CT colonography, enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy have also been introduced. Areas covered: This review updates the approach to practical investigation of IDA. Medline was searched using the terms iron deficiency AND anemia AND/OR gastroscopy, colonoscopy, capsule and enteroscopy, together with review of recent relevant published abstracts on the topic. Expert commentary: Gastrointestinal pathology is now a more common cause of IDA than upper GI causes, reflecting better colonoscopy accuracy and completion rates as well as changing disease patterns, and carcinomas are more likely cause IDA than benign adenomas. Increasing use of antiplatelet and anticoagulants is driving greater presentation of IDA. Capsule endoscopy, enteroscopy and CT colonography are increasingly used. Fecal occult blood testing may be a useful simple screening method in the frail, as a negative test can avoid the need for invasive tests.

Immune checkpoint inhibition-related colitis: symptoms, endoscopic features, histology and response to management

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are successfully introduced as anticancer treatment. However, they may induce severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs). One of the most frequent irAEs is diarrhoea. The main objective of this study was to analyse symptoms (ie, grade of diarrhoea), endoscopic and histological features and response to management in immune checkpoint inhibition-related colitis (IRC).

Patients and methods

We retrospectively analysed patients who developed diarrhoea on checkpoint inhibition and therefore underwent an endoscopy and/or were treated with corticosteroids. Patients were treated between August 2010 and March 2016 for metastatic melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer. Severity of IRC was scored using the endoscopic Mayo score and the van der Heide score.

Results

Out of a cohort of 781 patients, 92 patients were identified who developed diarrhoea and therefore underwent an endoscopy and/or were treated with corticosteroids. Patients were treated with monotherapy anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4, antiprogrammed death receptor-1 or a combination of both. All patients had symptoms of diarrhoea (grade 1: 16%; grade 2: 39% and grade 3: 44%). A complete colonoscopy was performed in 62 (67%) patients, of whom 42 (68%) had a pancolitis (≥3 affected segments). Ulcers were seen in 32% of endoscopies. There was no significant correlation between the grade of diarrhoea at presentation and endoscopic severity scores, the presence of ulcers or histological features. In 54 episodes of diarrhoea (56%), patients received one or more cycles infliximab for steroid-refractory colitis. Patients with higher endoscopic severity scores, ulcers and/or a pancolitis needed infliximab more often.

Conclusions

The correlation between grade of diarrhoea and endoscopic or histological features for severity of colitis is poor. Patients with higher endoscopic severity scores, ulcers or a pancolitis needed the addition of infliximab more often. Therefore, endoscopy may have value in the evaluation of the severity of IRC and may help in decision making for optimal management.

The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Program: current perspectives on strategies for improvement

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. The English National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) was introduced in 2006 to improve CRC mortality by earlier detection of CRC. It is now offered to patients aged 60-74 years and involves a home-based guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBt) biennially, and if positive, patients are offered a colonoscopy. This has been associated with a 15% reduction in mortality. In 2013, an additional arm to BCSP was introduced, Bowelscope. This offers patients aged 55 years a one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy, and if several adenomas are found, the patients are offered a completion colonoscopy. BCSP has been associated with a significant stage shift in CRC diagnosis; however, the uptake of bowel cancer screening remains lower than that for other screening programs. Further work is required to understand the reasons for nonparticipation of patients to ensure optimal uptake. A change of gFOBt kit to the fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) in the English BCSP may further increase patient participation. This, in addition to increased yield of neoplasia and cancers with the FIT kit, is likely to further improve CRC outcomes in the screened population.

Nontraumatic large bowel perforation: spectrum of etiologies and CT findings

Large bowel perforation is an abdominal emergency that results from a wide range of etiologies. Computed tomography is the most reliable modality in detecting the site of large bowel perforation. The diagnosis is made by identifying direct CT findings such as extraluminal gas or contrast and discontinuity along the bowel wall. Indirect CT findings can help support the diagnosis, and include bowel wall thickening, pericolic fat stranding, abnormal bowel wall enhancement, abscess, and a feculent collection adjacent to the bowel. Common etiologies that cause large bowel perforation are colon cancer, foreign body aspiration, stercoral colitis, diverticulitis, ischemia, inflammatory and infectious colitides, and various iatrogenic causes. Recognizing a large bowel perforation on CT can be difficult at times, and there are various entities that may be misinterpreted as a colonic perforation. The purpose of this article is to outline the MDCT technique used for evaluation of suspected colorectal perforation, discuss relevant imaging findings, review common etiologies, and point out potential pitfalls in making the diagnosis of large bowel perforation.

Adverse events during CT colonography for screening, diagnosis and preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: a Japanese national survey

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively evaluate the frequencies and magnitudes of adverse events associated with computed tomographic colonography (CTC) for screening, diagnosis and preoperative staging of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A Japanese national survey on CTC was administered by use of an online survey tool in the form of a questionnaire. The questions covered mortality, colorectal perforation, vasovagal reaction, total number of examinations, and examination procedures. The survey data was collated and raw frequencies were determined. Fisher's exact test was used to determine differences in event rates between groups.

RESULTS

At 431 institutions, 147,439 CTC examinations were performed. No deaths were reported. Colorectal perforations occurred in 0.014% (21/147,439): 0.003% (1/29,823) in screening, 0.014% (13/91,007) in diagnosis and 0.028% (7/25,330) in preoperative staging. The perforation risk was significantly lower in screening than in preoperative staging CTC procedures (p = 0.028). Eighty-one per cent of perforation cases (17/21) did not require emergency surgery. Vasovagal reaction occurred in 0.081% (120/147,439): 0.111% (33/29,823) in screening, 0.088% (80/91,007) in diagnosis and 0.028% (7/25,330) in preoperative staging.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of colorectal perforation and vasovagal reaction in CTC is low. The frequency of colorectal perforation associated with CTC is least in the screening group and greatest in the preoperative-staging group.

KEY POINTS

• The colorectal perforation rate during preoperative-staging CTC was 0.028 %. • The perforation rates for screening and diagnosis were 0.003 % and 0.014 %, respectively. • The perforation risk is significantly lower in screening than in preoperative staging. • Eighty-one per cent of perforation cases did not require emergency surgery. • Use of an automatic colon insufflator can reduce the risk of bowel perforation.

CT colonography: role in FOBT-based screening programs for colorectal cancer

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive imaging examination for the colon, and is safe, well tolerated and accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma. While the role of CTC as a primary test for population screening of CRC is under investigation, the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) has been recommended for population screening of CRC in Europe. Subjects with positive FOBT are invited to undergo total colonoscopy, which has some critical issues, such as suboptimal compliance, contraindications and the possibility of an incomplete exploration of the colon. Based on available data, the integration of CTC in FOBT-based population screening programs for CRC may fall into three scenarios. First, CTC is recommended in FOBT-positive subjects when colonoscopy is refused, incomplete or contraindicated. For these indications CTC should replace double-contrast barium enema. Second, conversely, CTC is not currently recommended as a second-level examination prior to colonoscopy in all FOBT-positive subjects, as this strategy is most probably not cost-effective. Finally, CTC may be considered instead of colonoscopy for surveillance after adenoma removal, but specific studies are needed.

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.

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.

Case Report: Rectal perforation during CT colonography

Introduction

Computer tomography colonoscopy (CTC) is an increasingly prevalent procedure for the investigation of colorectal symptoms, or as a component of colorectal cancer screening.  It is considered a low risk procedure, however colonic perforation is a recognized significant complication.

Case Report

We report the case of an 81-year-old female patient who underwent CTC after failed optical colonoscopy as part of routine colorectal cancer screening.  Perforation of the rectum with surrounding pararectal air was confirmed on CTC.  The patient had minimal symptoms and was treated successful non-operatively with bowel rest and antibiotics.

Conclusion

Perforation sustained during CTC is an uncommon complication.  The incidence of perforation during CTC is still lower than that during optical colonoscopy.  In the absence of significant abdominal signs and symptoms, this rare complication may be successfully managed non-operatively.

Diagnostic imaging and radiation exposure in inflammatory bowel disease

Diagnostic imaging plays a key role in the diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However due to the relapsing nature of IBD, there is growing concern that IBD patients may be exposed to potentially harmful cumulative levels of ionising radiation in their lifetime, increasing malignant potential in a population already at risk. In this review we explore the proportion of IBD patients exposed to high cumulative radiation doses, the risk factors associated with higher radiation exposures, and we compare conventional diagnostic imaging with newer radiation-free imaging techniques used in the evaluation of patients with IBD. While computed tomography (CT) performs well as an imaging modality for IBD, the effective radiation dose is considerably higher than other abdominal imaging modalities. It is increasingly recognised that CT imaging remains responsible for the majority of diagnostic medical radiation to which IBD patients are exposed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and small intestine contrast enhanced ultrasonography (SICUS) have now emerged as suitable radiation-free alternatives to CT imaging, with comparable diagnostic accuracy. The routine use of MRI and SICUS for the clinical evaluation of patients with known or suspected small bowel Crohn’s disease is to be encouraged wherever possible. More provision is needed for out-of-hours radiation-free imaging modalities to reduce the need for CT.

Reduced and Full-Preparation CT Colonography, Fecal Immunochemical Test, and Colonoscopy for Population Screening of Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Population screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is widely adopted, but the preferred strategy is still under debate. We aimed to compare reduced (r-CTC) and full cathartic preparation CT colonography (f-CTC), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and optical colonoscopy (OC) as primary screening tests for CRC.

METHODS

Citizens of a district of Florence, Italy, age 54 to 65 years, were allocated (8:2.5:2.5:1) with simple randomization to be invited by mail to one of four screening interventions: 1) biennial FIT for three rounds, 2) r-CTC, 3) f-CTC, 4) OC. Patients tested positive to FIT or CTC (at least one polyp ≥6mm) were referred to OC work-up. The primary outcomes were participation rate and detection rate (DR) for cancer or advanced adenoma (advanced neoplasia). All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Sixteen thousand eighty-seven randomly assigned subjects were invited to the assigned screening test. Participation rates were 50.4% (4677/9288) for first-round FIT, 28.1% (674/2395) for r-CTC, 25.2% (612/2430) for f-CTC, and 14.8% (153/1036) for OC. All differences between groups were statistically significant (P = .047 for r-CTC vs f-CTC; P < .001 for all others). DRs for advanced neoplasia were 1.7% (79/4677) for first-round FIT, 5.5% (37/674) for r-CTC, 4.9% (30/612) for f-CTC, and 7.2% (11/153) for OC. Differences in DR between CTC groups and FIT were statistically significant (P < .001), but not between r-CTC and f-CTC (P = .65).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced preparation increases participation in CTC. Lower attendance and higher DR of CTC as compared with FIT are key factors for the optimization of its role in population screening of CRC.

The safety of same-day CT colonography following incomplete colonoscopy with polypectomy

BACKGROUND

Concerns about the risk of bowel perforation for same-day computed tomography colonography (CTC) following an incomplete colonoscopy with polypectomy may lead to unnecessarily postponing the CTC.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to describe the complications including colon perforations associated with same-day CTC in a cohort who had polypectomies but an incomplete colonoscopy.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective study.

SETTING

Our study took place in a single, tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

We studied consecutive patients who had CTC the same day as an incomplete colonoscopy with polypectomy.

INTERVENTIONS

Interventions included optical colonoscopy (OC), endoscopic polypectomies, and same-day CTC.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Our main outcome measurements included perforation rate with long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 3% of patients undergoing colonoscopy from January 2008 to December 2012 had same-day CTC following incomplete OC, and 72 polypectomies were performed in 34 (or 17%) of these patients. Incomplete colonoscopies were due to colon tortuosity and looping (25), severe angulations (five), colon mass (two), colon stenosis (one), bradycardia (one). Fifty-three percent of the OCs were screening for colon neoplasia, 29% diagnostic and 18% were surveillance of colon polyps. Most polyps were ≤ 5 mm, and found in the left colon. There were no reported complications or perforations associated with same-day CTCs during short- and long-term follow-up.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of our analysis included retrospective single-center design, small number of patients for the occurrence, referral to same-day CTC was not standardized, inability to establish safety of CTC for specific scenarios such as after complex polypectomies, strictures, or advanced IBD.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiologists' apprehension to perform a CTC the same day as an incomplete colonoscopy following polypectomies because of perceived risk of perforation may be unfounded. More data are needed to determine the safety of same-day CTC in patients with high-risk findings during colonoscopy such as a stricture, severe IBD, and after complex polypectomies.

The role of virtual colonoscopy in colorectal screening

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The earlier colorectal cancer is detected, the better chance a person has of surviving 5 years after being diagnosed, emphasizing the need for effective and regular colorectal screening. Computed tomographic colonography has repeatedly demonstrated sensitivities equivalent to the current gold standard, optical colonoscopy, in the detection of clinically relevant polyps. It is an accurate, safe, affordable, available, reproducible, quick, and cost-effective option for colorectal screening and should be considered for mass screening.

Computed tomography colonography in 2014: an update on technique and indications

Twenty years after its introduction, computed tomographic colonography (CTC) has reached its maturity, and it can reasonably be considered the best radiological diagnostic test for imaging colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyps. This examination technique is less invasive than colonoscopy (CS), easy to perform, and standardized. Reduced bowel preparation and colonic distention using carbon dioxide favor patient compliance. Widespread implementation of a new image reconstruction algorithm has minimized radiation exposure, and the use of dedicated software with enhanced views has enabled easier image interpretation. Integration in the routine workflow of a computer-aided detection algorithm reduces perceptual errors, particularly for small polyps. Consolidated evidence from the literature shows that the diagnostic performances for the detection of CRC and large polyps in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals are similar to CS and are largely superior to barium enema, the latter of which should be strongly discouraged. Favorable data regarding CTC performance open the possibility for many different indications, some of which are already supported by evidence-based data: incomplete, failed, or unfeasible CS; symptomatic, elderly, and frail patients; and investigation of diverticular disease. Other indications are still being debated and, thus, are recommended only if CS is unfeasible: the use of CTC in CRC screening and in surveillance after surgery for CRC or polypectomy. In order for CTC to be used appropriately, contraindications such as acute abdominal conditions (diverticulitis or the acute phase of inflammatory bowel diseases) and surveillance in patients with a long-standing history of ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease and in those with hereditary colonic syndromes should not be overlooked. This will maximize the benefits of the technique and minimize potential sources of frustration or disappointment for both referring clinicians and patients.