How to read and report CTC

CT colonography: size reduction of submerged colorectal polyps due to electronic cleansing and CT-window settings

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether electronic cleansing (EC) of tagged residue and different computed tomography (CT) windows influence the size of colorectal polyps in CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

A database of 894 colonoscopy-validated CTC datasets of a low-prevalence cohort was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients with polyps ≥6 mm that were entirely submerged in tagged residue. Ten radiologists independently measured the largest diameter of each polyp, two-dimensionally, before and after EC in colon, bone, and soft-tissue-windows, in randomised order. Differences in size and polyp count before and after EC were calculated for size categories ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm. Statistical testing involved 95% confidence interval, intraclass correlation and mixed-model ANOVA.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients with 48 polyps were included. Mean polyp size before EC was 9.8 mm in colon, 9.9 mm in bone and 8.2 mm in soft-tissue windows. After EC, the mean polyp size decreased significantly to 9.4 mm in colon, 9.1 mm in bone and 7.1 mm in soft-tissue windows. Compared to unsubtracted colon windows, EC, performed in colon, bone and soft-tissue windows, led to a shift of 6 (12,5%), 10 (20.8%) and 25 (52.1%) polyps ≥6 mm into the next smaller size category, thus affecting patient risk stratification.

CONCLUSIONS

EC and narrow CT windows significantly reduce the size of polyps submerged in tagged residue. Polyp measurements should be performed in unsubtracted colon windows.

KEY POINTS

• EC significantly reduces the size of polyps submerged in tagged residue. • Abdominal CT-window settings significantly underestimate 2D sizes of submerged polyps. • Size reduction in EC is significantly greater in narrow than wide windows. • Underestimation of polyp size due to EC may lead to inadequate treatment. • Polyp measurements should be performed in unsubtracted images using a colon window.

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.

CT colonography with rectal iodine tagging: Feasibility and comparison with oral tagging in a colorectal cancer screening population

PURPOSE

To evaluate feasibility, diagnostic performance, patient acceptance, and overall examination time of CT colonography (CTC) performed through rectal administration of iodinated contrast material.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six-hundred asymptomatic subjects (male:female=270:330; mean 63 years) undergoing CTC for colorectal cancer screening on an individual basis were consecutively enrolled in the study. Out of them, 503 patients (group 1) underwent CTC with rectal tagging, of which 55 had a total of 77 colonic lesions. The remaining 97 patients (group 2) were randomly selected to receive CTC with oral tagging of which 15 had a total of 20 colonic lesions. CTC findings were compared with optical colonoscopy, and per-segment image quality was visually assessed using a semi-quantitative score (1=poor, 2=adequate, 3=excellent). In 70/600 patients (11.7%), CTC was performed twice with both types of tagging over a 5-year follow-up cancer screening program. In this subgroup, patient acceptance was rated via phone interview two weeks after CTC using a semi-quantitative scale (1=poor, 2=fair, 3=average, 4=good, 5=excellent).

RESULTS

Mean per-polyp sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of CTC with rectal vs oral tagging were 96.1% (CI95% 85.4÷99.3%) vs 89.4% (CI95% 65.4÷98.1%), 95.3% (CI95% 90.7÷97.8%) vs 95.8% (CI95% 87.6÷98.9%), 86.0% (CI95% 73.6÷93.3) vs 85.0% (CI95% 61.1÷96.0%), and 98.8% (CI95% 95.3÷99.8%) vs 97.2% (CI95% 89.4÷99.5%), respectively (p>0.05). Polyp detection rates were not statistically different between groups 1 and 2 (p>0.05). Overall examination time was significantly shorter with rectal than with oral tagging (18.3±3.5 vs 215.6±10.3 minutes, respectively; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal iodine tagging can be an effective alternative to oral tagging for CTC with the advantages of greater patient acceptance and lower overall examination time.

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.

Loss of stromal caveolin-1 expression: a novel tumor microenvironment biomarker that can predict poor clinical outcomes for pancreatic cancer

AIMS

Cancer development and progression is not only associated with the tumor cell proliferation but also depends on the interaction between tumor cells and the stromal microenvironment. A new understanding of the role of the tumor microenvironment suggests that the loss of stromal caveolin-1 (Cav-1) as a key regulator may become a potential therapy target. This study aims to elucidate whether stromal Cav-1 expression in pancreatic cancer can be a strong prognosis biomarker.

METHODS

Tissue samples from 45 pancreatic cancer patients were studied. Parenchyma and stroma were separated and purified using laser capture microdissection. Stromal Cav-1 expression was measured from pancreatic cancer, paraneoplastic, and normal tissue using immunohistochemistry. We analyzed the correlation of stromal Cav-1 expression with clinicopathologic features and prognostic indicators, such as tumor marker HER-2/neu gene.

RESULTS

Specimens from six patients (13.3%) showed high levels of stromal Cav-1 staining, those from eight patients (17.8%) showed a lower, intermediate level of staining, whereas those from 31 patients (68.9%) showed an absence of staining. Cav-1 expression in cancer-associated fibroblasts was lower than that in paracancer-associated and in normal fibroblasts. Stromal Cav-1 loss was associated with TNM stage (P = 0.018), lymph node metastasis (P = 0.014), distant metastasis (P = 0.027), and HER-2/neu amplification (P = 0.007). The relationships of age, sex, histological grade, and tumor size with stromal Cav-1 expression were not significant (P>0.05). A negative correlation was found between circulating tumor cells and stromal Cav-1 expression (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The loss of stromal Cav-1 in pancreatic cancer was an independent prognostic indicator, thus suggesting that stromal Cav-1 may be an effective therapeutic target for patients with pancreatic cancer.