Detection of colorectal lesions with virtual computed tomographic colonography

Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Studies reported various diagnostic value of radiologic imaging modalities for diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer (CRC).

AIMS

To summary the diagnosis and management of CRC using computed tomography colonography (CTC), magnetic resonance colonography (MRC), and positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library for studies published before April 2021. The diagnostic performance of CTC, MRC, and PET/CT for CRC was summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 54 studies (17 studies for CTC, 8 studies for MRC, and 29 studies for PET/CT) were selected for final analysis. The sensitivity and specificity for CTC ranged from 27 to 100%, 88 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for CTC were 0.97 (95% CI 0.88-0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-1.00). The sensitivity and specificity for MRC ranged from 48 to 100%, 60 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRC were 0.98 (95% C: 0.77-1.00) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.84-0.98). The sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT ranged from 84 to 100%, 33 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.97). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CTC, MRC, and PET/CT was 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00), 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), and 0.97 (0.95% CI 0.95-0.98), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested both CTC and MRC with relative higher diagnostic value for diagnosing CRC, while PET/CT with higher diagnostic value in detecting local recurrence for patients with CRC.

Computed Tomography Colonography (CTC): Is It Really the Non-Invasive Option We Think It Is? A Patient Experience Study

Aims: Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is seen as a more tolerable alternative to colonoscopy, but patients struggle with the steps required for optimal diagnostic imaging. This prospective study aims to understand the experience of patients undergoing CTC. Methods: A survey was completed by a convenience sample of patients before and after CTC over 7 months. The 13-item questionnaire covered pre-test information, overall and specific experience of the test. The responses were tabulated and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative free-text responses were coded for content and thematic analysis. Results: At a response rate of 51%, surveys were received from 41 patients. Overall, most patients (54%) found the investigation better than expected. However, 18% stated they were not informed of potential side effects. Side effects were experienced by 49% of patients, including diarrhea (34%) and abdominal pain (24%). About 59% experienced discomfort with gas insufflation, and 86% found turning during the investigation difficult. Conclusion: A significant proportion of patients undergoing CTC experience side effects and difficulties completing the investigation. Patient information is important to improve patient experience of CTC.

Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance and computed tomography colonography for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the recommended procedure for colorectal cancer (CRC), but majority of the patients were diagnosed with advanced or metastatic CRC. Currently, there were inconsistent results about the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) and computed tomography colonography (CTC) in early CRC diagnosis. Our study conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the diagnostic value of MRC and CTC for CRC surveillance.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library to select relevant studies. The summary sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic value of MRC and CTC, respectively.

RESULT

Twenty-five studies including 2985 individuals were selected in the final analysis. Eight studies evaluated the diagnostic value of MRC, and 17 studies assessed CTC. The summary sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC in MRC for early detection of CRC were 0.98 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.80-1.00), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.85-0.97), 15.48 (95% CI: 6.30-38.04), 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00-0.25), 115.09 (95% CI: 15.37-862.01), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99), respectively. In addition, the sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC of CTC for diagnosing CRC were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.88-0.99), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 154.11 (95% CI: 67.81-350.22), 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01-0.13), 642.51 (95% CI: 145.05-2846.02), and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00). No significant differences were found between MRC and CTC for DOR in all the subsets.

CONCLUSION

The findings of meta-analysis indicated that MRC and CTC have higher diagnostic values for early CRC diagnosis. However, the DOR for diagnosing CRC between MRC and CTC showed no significance.

Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance versus computed tomography colonography for colorectal cancer: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Advanced colorectal cancers were associated with poor prognosis, and early diagnosis was important for high-risk patients. Colonography is commonly used for diagnosing colorectal cancer. However, a few studies reported the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) versus computed tomography colonography (CTC). This study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of MRC versus CTC for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Twenty-three studies on the diagnosis of colorectal cancer using MRC or CTC were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases until July 2017. The ratios of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated to compare the diagnostic value of MRC versus CTC.

RESULTS

The summary sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and area under the ROC for MRC were 0.97 (0.81-1.00), 0.92 (0.80-0.97), 11.71 (4.46-30.73), 0.03 (0.00-0.24), and 0.98 (0.97-0.99), respectively, for diagnosing colorectal cancer. The pooled estimates for CTC in diagnosing colorectal cancer were as follows: sensitivity, 0.96 (0.90-0.98); specificity, 1.00 (0.99-1.00); PLR, 197.32 (73.21-531.85); NLR, 0.04 (0.02-0.11); and area under the ROC, 1.00 (0.99-1.00). No significant differences were found between MRC and CTC for sensitivity, specificity, and NLR. MRC was associated with lower PLR and area under the ROC for diagnosing colorectal cancer compared with CTC.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated MRC and CTC as potential diagnostic approaches for colorectal cancer. CTC had a higher diagnostic value of PLR and area under the ROC for colorectal cancer.

Virtual Colonoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed tumor in both males and females in the United States. Current modalities for colorectal cancer screening include fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, double-contrast barium enema, and colonoscopy. Virtual colonoscopy is a promising new method for assessing the entire colon. Vining and Gelfand first described this technique in 1994. Since then, virtual colonoscopy has been shown to be extremely safe and well tolerated by patients. Indications for virtual colonoscopy include screening for polyps, incomplete or failed colonoscopy, and preoperative assessment of the colon proximal to an occlusive cancer or even redundant fixed or stenotic colon that cannot be endoscopically traversed. Virtual colonoscopy may dramatically increase patient participation in screening programs, leading to early diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Although virtual colonoscopy seems a potentially attractive screening method for colorectal cancer, the cost-effectiveness of this method is yet to be determined.

History, evolution, and current status of radiologic imaging tests for colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer screening is thought to be an effective tool with which to reduce the mortality from colorectal cancer through early detection and removal of colonic adenomas and early colon cancers. In this article, we review the history, evolution, and current status of imaging tests of the colon-including single-contrast barium enema, double-contrast barium enema, computed tomographic (CT) colonography, and magnetic resonance (MR) colonography-for colorectal cancer screening. Despite its documented value in the detection of colonic polyps, the double-contrast barium enema has largely disappeared as a screening test because it is widely perceived as a labor-intensive, time-consuming, and technically demanding procedure. In the past decade, the barium enema has been supplanted by CT colonography as the major imaging test in colorectal cancer screening in the United States, with MR colonography emerging as another viable option in Europe. Although MR colonography does not require ionizing radiation, the radiation dose for CT colonography has decreased substantially, and regular screening with this technique has a high benefit-to-risk ratio. In recent years, CT colonography has been validated as an effective tool for use in colorectal cancer screening that is increasingly being disseminated.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most colorectal cancers can be prevented by detecting and removing the precursor adenomatous polyp. Individual risk factors for the development of colorectal cancer will influence the particular choice of screening tool. CT colonography (CTC) is the primary imaging test for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals, whereas the double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) is now considered to be a test that may be appropriate, particularly in settings where CTC is unavailable. Single-contrast barium enema has a lower performance profile and is indicated for screening only when CTC and DCBE are not available. CTC is also the preferred test for colon evaluation following an incomplete colonoscopy. Imaging tests including CTC and DCBE are not indicated for colorectal cancer screening in high-risk patients with polyposis syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease. This paper presents the updated colorectal cancer imaging test ratings and is the result of evidence-based consensus by the ACR Appropriateness Criteria Expert Panel on Gastrointestinal Imaging. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Adverse events of computed tomography colonography: an Italian National Survey

AIM

To retrospectively study the frequency and magnitude of complications associated with computed tomography (CT) colonography in clinical practice.

METHODS

A questionnaire on complications of CT colonography was sent to Italian public radiology departments identified as practicing CT colonography with a reasonable level of training. The frequency of complications and possible risk factors were retrospectively determined. Responses were collated and row frequencies determined. A multivariate analysis of the factors causing adverse events was also performed.

RESULTS

40,121 examinations were performed in13 centers during the study period. No deaths were reported. Bowel perforations occurred in 0.02% (7 exams). All perforations were asymptomatic and occurred in patients undergoing manual insufflation. Five perforations (71%) occurred in procedures performed following a recent colonoscopy. There was no significant difference between perforations associated with rectal balloon (0.017%) and those that were not (0.02%). Complications related to vasovagal reaction (either with or without spasmolytic) occurred in 0.16% (63 exams). All vasovagal reactions resolved in less than 3h, without any sequelae.

CONCLUSIONS

Perforation rate at CT colonography in Italy is comparable with elsewhere in the world, occurring regardless of the experience of radiology centers. Although the risk is very small, it may not be negligible when compared with the risk of diagnostic colonoscopy.

Development of an Automatic Adjustable Colonoscope

Colonoscopy can be associated with many problems, such as mechanical trauma due to the distal tip contacting the colon wall or health issues due to the extended use of anesthesia. In order to eliminate these complications, an automatic adjustable colonoscope was designed. This device uses sensors, actuators, and a control system to automatically position the distal tip in the center of the colon lumen. The sensors were tested to determine their ability to accurately sense the distance from the tip to the surface. The actuators were tested to determine the correlation between motor rotation and displacement of the distal tip. The control system was tested to assess the ability of the device to position the tip in the center of the test tube and the ability to navigate through a flat test course. It was determined that the sensors could accurately determine distances from 0 to 15 mm from the test surface in all test conditions. The motors for up-down movement and left-right movement of the colonoscope had response times of 0.57 s and 0.69 s, respectively, when the motors were rotated from 0 deg to 90 deg. The control system was able to safely move the colonoscope tip away from all walls of the test apparatus. It was also able to navigate through the flat test course without coming in contact with the walls. The automatic adjustable colonoscope has demonstrated that it can safely and effectively position the distal tip to avoid contact with the walls of the test surface.

Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection--systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies assessing the sensitivity of both computed tomographic (CT) colonography and optical colonoscopy (OC) for colorectal cancer detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. The primary data source was the results of a detailed PubMed search from 1994 to 2009. Diagnostic studies evaluating CT colonography detection of colorectal cancer were assessed by using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, in particular requiring both OC and histologic confirmation of disease. Studies that also included a mechanism to assess true-positive versus false-negative diagnoses at OC (eg, segmental unblinding) were used to calculate OC sensitivity. Assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Potential bias was ascertained by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines. Specific CT colonography techniques were cataloged. Forest plots of per-patient sensitivity were produced on the basis of random-effect models. Potential bias across primary studies was assessed by using the I(2) statistic. Original study authors were contacted for data clarification when necessary.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies provided data on 11,151 patients with a cumulative colorectal cancer prevalence of 3.6% (414 cancers). The sensitivity of CT colonography for colorectal cancer was 96.1% (398 of 414; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.8%, 97.7%). No heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%) was detected. No cancers were missed at CT colonography when both cathartic and tagging agents were combined in the bowel preparation. The sensitivity of OC for colorectal cancer, derived from a subset of 25 studies including 9223 patients, was 94.7% (178 of 188; 95% CI: 90.4%, 97.2%). A moderate degree of heterogeneity (I(2) = 50%) was present.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography is highly sensitive for colorectal cancer, especially when both cathartic and tagging agents are combined in the bowel preparation. Given the relatively low prevalence of colorectal cancer, primary CT colonography may be more suitable than OC for initial investigation of suspected colorectal cancer, assuming reasonable specificity.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11101887/-/DC1.

Development of a colonoscopy add-on device for improvement of the intubation process

A colonoscopy add-on device has been developed to reduce intubation time without modification of the current colonoscope and peripheral devices. One of the main purposes of the system is to minimize trauma caused by the distal tip of the colonoscope. The detachable sensory fixture at the end of the distal tip measures the distance between the distal tip and the colon wall in three directions, and the actuation system attached at the base of the colonoscope controls the distal tip by rotating two dial knobs. The device controls the distal tip to minimize contact between the distal tip and the colon wall, and the distal tip ideally points out the next possible lumen. A compatibility test of the infrared sensory system was carried out, and the design of the actuation system was accomplished. The system is integrated and controlled by a microprocessor. The device was tested in a silicon colon and porcine intestine. The results showed that a colonoscopist successfully reached the cecum with the aid of the colonoscopy add-on device without significant contact between the colon wall and the distal tip. The colonoscopy aid device was very helpful for the novice colonoscopist.

CT colonography: computer-assisted detection of colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

Computer-aided detection (CAD) for CT colonography (CTC) has been developed to detect benign polyps in asymptomatic patients. We aimed to determine whether such a CAD system can also detect cancer in symptomatic patients.

METHODS

CTC data from 137 symptomatic patients subsequently proven to have colorectal cancer were analysed by a CAD system at 4 different sphericity settings: 0, 50, 75 and 100. CAD prompts were classified by an observer as either true-positive if overlapping a cancer or false-positive if elsewhere. Colonoscopic data were used to aid matching.

RESULTS

Of 137 cancers, CAD identified 124 (90.5%), 122 (89.1%), 119 (86.9%) and 102 (74.5%) at a sphericity of 0, 50, 75 and 100, respectively. A substantial proportion of cancers were detected on either the prone or supine acquisition alone. Of 125 patients with prone and supine acquisitions, 39.3%, 38.3%, 43.2% and 50.5% of cancers were detected on a single acquisition at a sphericity of 0, 50, 75 and 100, respectively. CAD detected three cancers missed by radiologists at the original clinical interpretation. False-positive prompts decreased with increasing sphericity value (median 65, 57, 45, 24 per patient at values of 0, 50, 75, 100, respectively) but many patients were poorly prepared.

CONCLUSION

CAD can detect symptomatic colorectal cancer but must be applied to both prone and supine acquisitions for best performance.

Establishing a CT colonography service

This article describes the steps involved in establishing a screening computed tomographic colonography (CTC) practice and integrating that practice within a gastroenterology practice. The standard operating procedures followed at the National Naval Medical Center's Colon Health Initiative are presented and are followed by a discussion of practical aspects of establishing a CTC practice, such as equipment specifications, CTC performance, and interpretation training requirements for radiologists and nonradiologists. Regulatory considerations involved in establishing a screening CTC program are examined along with the salient features of a CTC business plan. Finally, reimbursement issues, quality control, and the potential impact of screening CTC on colonoscopy practice are discussed.

ACR Colon Cancer Committee white paper: status of CT colonography 2009

PURPOSE

To review the current status and rationale of the updated ACR practice guidelines for CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

Clinical validation trials in both the United States and Europe are reviewed. Key technical aspects of the CTC examination are emphasized, including low-dose protocols, proper insufflation, and bowel preparation. Important issues of implementation are discussed, including training and certification, definition of the target lesion, reporting of colonic and extracolonic findings, quality metrics, reimbursement, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Successful validation trials in screening cohorts both in the United States with ACRIN and in Germany demonstrated sensitivity > or = 90% for patients with polyps >10 mm. Proper technique is critical, including low-dose techniques in screening cohorts, with an upper limit of the CT dose index by volume of 12.5 mGy per examination. Training new readers includes the requirement of interactive workstation training with 2-D and 3-D image display techniques. The target lesion is defined as a polyp > or = 6 mm, consistent with the American Cancer Society joint guidelines. Five quality metrics have been defined for CTC, with pilot data entered. Although the CMS national noncoverage decision in May 2009 was a disappointment, multiple third-party payers are reimbursing for screening CTC. Cost-effective modeling has shown CTC to be a dominant strategy, including in a Medicare cohort.

CONCLUSION

Supported by third-party payer reimbursement for screening, CTC will continue to further transition into community practice and can provide an important adjunctive examination for colorectal screening.

Formative evaluation of standardized training for CT colonographic image interpretation by novice readers

PURPOSE

To introduce an educational intervention-specifically, a specialized training course-and perform a formative evaluation of the effect of the intervention on novice reader interpretation of computed tomography (CT) colonographic data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was institutional review board approved. Ten normal and 50 abnormal cases, those of 60 patients with 93 polyps-61 polyps 6-9 mm in diameter and 32 polyps 10 mm or larger-were selected from a previously published trial. Seven novice readers underwent initial training that consisted of a 1-day course, reading assignments, a self-study computer module (with 61 limited data sets), observation of an expert interpreting three cases, and full interpretation of 10 cases with unblinding after each case. After training, the observers independently interpreted 60 cases by means of primary two-dimensional reading with unblinding after each case. For each case, the reading time and the location and maximal diameter of the polyp(s) were recorded. A t test was used to evaluate the observers' improvements, and empirical receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed.

RESULTS

By-patient sensitivities and specificities were determined for each observer. The lowest by-patient sensitivity at the 6 mm or larger polyp threshold was 86%, with 90% specificity. Four observers had 100% by-patient sensitivity at the 10 mm or larger polyp threshold, with 82%-97% specificity. For polyps 10 mm or larger, mean sensitivity and specificity were 98% and 92%, respectively. For the last 20 cases, the average interpretation time per case was 25 minutes. The range of areas under the ROC curve across observers was low: 0.86-0.95.

CONCLUSION

In the described polyp-enriched cohort, novice CT colonographic data readers achieved high sensitivity and good specificity at formative evaluation of a comprehensive training program. Use of a similar comprehensive training method might reduce interreader variability in interpretation accuracy and be useful for reader certification.

Volumetric Curved Planar Reformation for virtual endoscopy

Curved Planar Reformation (CPR) has proved to be a practical and widely used tool for the visualization of curved tubular structures within the human body. It has been useful in medical procedures involving the examination of blood vessels and the spine. However, it is more difficult to use it for large, tubular, structures such as the trachea and the colon because abnormalities may be smaller relative to the size of the structure and may not have such distinct density and shape characteristics. Our new approach improves on this situation by using volume rendering for hollow regions and standard CPR for the surrounding tissue. This effectively combines gray scale contextual information with detailed color information from the area of interest. The approach is successfully used with each of the standard CPR types and the resulting images are promising as an alternative to virtual endoscopy. Because the CPR and the volume rendering are tightly coupled, the projection method used has a significant effect on properties of the volume renderer, such as distortion and isometry. We describe and compare the different CPR projection methods and how they affect the volume rendering process. A version of the algorithm is also presented which makes use of importance driven techniques; this ensures the users attention is always focused on the area of interest and also improves the speed of the algorithm.

Magnetic resonance colonography vs computed tomography colonography for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: an indirect comparison

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to use meta-regression techniques to compare the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) and magnetic resonance colonography (MRC), compared with conventional colonoscopy for patients presenting with colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHOD

Quantitative meta-analysis was performed using prospective studies reporting comparative data between CTC and MRC individually to conventional colonoscopy. Study quality was assessed and sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were calculated. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves and sensitivity analysis were utilized. Meta-regression was used to indirectly compare the two modalities following adjustment for patient and study characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall sensitivity and specificity for CTC (0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.99; 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00 respectively) and MRC (0.91, 95% CI 0.79-0.97; 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99 respectively) for the detection of CRC was similar. Meta-regression analysis showed no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy of both modalities (beta=-0.64, P=0.37 and 95% CI of 0.12-2.39). Both tests showed high area under the SROC curve (CTC=0.99; MRC=0.98), with high DORs (CTC=1461.90, 95% CI 544.89-3922.30; MRC=576.41, 95% CI 135.00-2448.56). Factors that enhanced the overall accuracy of MRC were the use intravenous contrast, faecal tagging and exclusion of low-quality studies. No factors improved diagnostic accuracy from CTC except studies with more than 100 patients (AUC=1.00, DOR=2938.35, 95%CI 701.84-12 302.91).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that CTC and MRC have similar diagnostic accuracy for detecting CRC. Study quality, size and intravenous/intra-luminal contrast agents affect diagnostic accuracies. For an exact comparison to be made, studies evaluating CTC, MRC and colonoscopy in the same patient cohort would be necessary.

Strengths and weaknesses of dark-lumen MR colonography: clinical relevance of polyps smaller than 5 mm in diameter at the moment of their detection

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical relevance of dark-lumen MR colonography (MRC) for the detection of colorectal lesions using conventional colonoscopy (CC) and histopathologic examinations as reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 72 patients underwent MRC and CC. MRC was performed using a contrast-enhanced high spatial resolution T1 weighted 3D volumetric interpolated breathhold examination (VIBE)-sequence. All removed colorectal lesions were evaluated by an experienced pathologist.

RESULTS

CC confirmed 65 polyps less than 5 mm in diameter. Non of those lesions could be detected using MRC. Just two (4%) of the 49 removed lesions smaller than 5 mm showed signs of dysplasia. Additionally, CC confirmed 25 polyps between 6-15 mm in diameter (MRC 22). All those 25 lesions were removed in CC. Only four (16%) of those polyps showed signs of dysplasia and malignancy (11, 13, 13 and 15 mm).

CONCLUSION

Dark-lumen MRC failed to detect all polyps smaller than 5 mm in diameter which are generally not clinically relevant at the moment of their detection and thus can be kept under surveillance. However, MRC as a non-invasive imaging modality is a promising alternative to CC in the detection of clinically relevant polyps larger than 5 mm in diameter.

Utility of dark-lumen MR colonography for the assessment of extra-colonic organs

The aim of the study was to evaluate the utility of dark-lumen MR colonography (MRC) for the assessment of extra-colonic organs. Three hundred seventy-five subjects with suspected colonic disease underwent a complete MRC examination. MRC data were evaluated by two radiologists in a blinded fashion. In addition to the large bowel, the extra-intestinal organs from the lung bases to the pelvis were assessed for the presence of pathologies. All findings were divided into known or unknown findings and therapeutically relevant or irrelevant findings. If deemed necessary, other diagnostic imaging tests to further assess those findings were performed. In total, 510 extra-colonic findings were found in 260 (69%) of the 375 subjects. Known extra-colonic findings were found in 140 subjects (54%) and unknown findings in 120 subjects (46%). Thirty-one (12%) of the 260 subjects had therapeutically relevant findings (45 findings); 229 patients (88%) had irrelevant findings (465 findings). Dark-lumen MRC is a useful tool not only for the assessment of the entire colon, but also for the evaluation of extra-colonic organs. Thus, intra- and extra-colonic pathologies can be diagnosed within the same examination.

Screening for colon cancer

Colorectal cancer screening reduces mortality in individuals 50 years and older. Each of the screening tests currently available has advantages and limitations, and there is no consensus as to which test or combination of tests is best. What is clear, however, is that the rates of colorectal cancer screening remain low. This review summarizes the clinical evidence supporting colorectal cancer screening in the average risk population and in high risk groups, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the available screening tests, outlines the currently recommended guidelines for screening based on risk category, and discusses new and emerging technologies for colorectal cancer screening.

Anaesthesia and sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Wide variations exist around the world in the practice of sedation for endoscopy, in terms of the depth of sedation, drug choices, delivery methods and the practitioners involved. These variations are driven by historical, cultural and economic factors. Professional bodies have promulgated guidelines in an attempt to unify and raise standards for sedation and monitoring. Nevertheless, preventable morbidity associated with sedation still occurs. A review of the recent literature is therefore justified.

RECENT FINDINGS

The main themes in this literature are the advent of the widespread use of propofol by non-anaesthesiologists, and particularly non-medical staff; novel methods for administering propofol; the acceptability of endoscopy without sedation; and emerging technologies that obviate the need for endoscopy.

SUMMARY

There is still much scope to research and refine sedation techniques for endoscopy. We believe that the involvement of anaesthesiologists in this research is vital.

Computer-assisted reader software versus expert reviewers for polyp detection on CT colonography

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to assess the sensitivity of computer-assisted reader (CAR) software for polyp detection compared with the performance of expert reviewers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A library of colonoscopically validated CT colonography cases were collated and separated into training and test sets according to the time of accrual. Training data sets were annotated in consensus by three expert radiologists who were aware of the colonoscopy report. A subset of 45 training cases containing 100 polyps underwent batch analysis using ColonCAR version 1.2 software to determine the optimum polyp enhancement filter settings for polyp detection. Twenty-five consecutive positive test data sets were subsequently interpreted individually by each expert, who was unaware of the endoscopy report, and before generation of the annotated reference via an unblinded consensus interpretation. ColonCAR version 1.2 software was applied to the test cases, at optimized polyp enhancement filter settings, to determine diagnostic performance. False-positive findings were classified according to importance.

RESULTS

The 25 test cases contained 32 nondiminutive polyps ranging from 6 to 35 mm in diameter. The ColonCAR version 1.2 software identified 26 (81%) of 32 polyps compared with an average sensitivity of 70% for the expert reviewers. Eleven (92%) of 12 polyps > or = 10 mm were detected by ColonCAR version 1.2. All polyps missed by experts 1 (n = 4) and 2 (n = 3) and 12 (86%) of 14 polyps missed by expert 3 were detected by ColonCAR version 1.2. The median number of false-positive highlights per case was 13, of which 91% were easily dismissed.

CONCLUSION

ColonCAR version 1.2 is sensitive for polyp detection, with a clinically acceptable false-positive rate. ColonCAR version 1.2 has a synergistic effect to the reviewer alone, and its standalone performance may exceed even that of experts.

Polyp detection with CT colonography: primary 3D endoluminal analysis versus primary 2D transverse analysis with computer-assisted reader software

PURPOSE

To retrospectively compare primary three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal analysis with primary two-dimensional (2D) transverse analysis supplemented by computer-assisted reader (CAR) software for computed tomographic (CT) polyp detection and reader reporting times.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethical permission and patient consent were obtained from all donor institutions for use of CT colonography data sets. Twenty CT colonography data sets from 14 men (median age, 61 years; age range, 52-78 years) with 48 endoscopically proved polyps were selected. Polyp coordinates were documented in consensus by three unblinded radiologists to create a reference standard. Two radiologists read the data sets, which were randomized between primary 3D endoluminal views with 2D problem solving and 2D views supplemented by CAR software. Reading times and diagnostic confidence were documented. The CAR software highlighted possible polyps by superimposing circles on the 2D transverse images. Data sets were reread after 1 month by using the opposing analysis method. Detection rates were compared by using the McNemar test. Reporting times and diagnostic confidence were compared by using the paired t test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively.

RESULTS

Mean sensitivity values for polyps measuring 1-5, 6-9, and 10 mm or larger were 14%, 53%, and 83%, respectively, for 2D CAR analysis and 16%, 53%, and 67%, respectively, for primary 3D analysis. Overall sensitivity values were 41% for 2D CAR analysis and 39% for primary 3D analysis (P=.77). Reader 1 detected more polyps than reader 2, particularly when using the 3D fly-through method (P=.002). Mean reading times were significantly longer with the 3D method (P=.001). Mean false-positive findings were 1.5 for 2D analysis and 5.5 for 3D analysis. Reader confidence was not significantly different between analysis methods (P=.42).

CONCLUSION

Two-dimensional CAR analysis is quicker and at least matches the sensitivity of primary 3D endoluminal analysis, with fewer false-positive findings.

Emerging technologies in colorectal cancer screening

CRC is a preventable disease through early detection, yet screening rates remain low and mortality rates remain high. The discomfort associated with the preparation and performance of some of the currently available screening modalities and the lack of public awareness about CRC and screening procedures likely account for low rates of screening. CT colonography and stool DNA testing are new promising screening technologies that are less invasive, accurate, and suitable for the public more than the current screening procedures. Before both tests can be promoted for population-based screening programs, several issues that have been detailed in this article must be addressed further, including technical improvements for improving accuracy, development of virtual preparation, test availability, patient and provider acceptability and cost-effectiveness for CTC, and identifying the optimal combination of molecular targets for stool DNA testing. The year 2005 will tell us if the ideal technology from the public health point of view was achieved. A skill-independent, anesthesia-free, self-propelling, self-navigating miniaturized endoscopic device that may move along the entire length of the colon may change the natural history of CRC. We should aim to achieve a new definition of CRC--a rare disease occurring in a subset of the population who has not been screened for the disease.

CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting

PURPOSE

To assess the methodologic quality of available data in published reports of computed tomographic (CT) colonography by performing systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The MEDLINE database was searched for colonography reports published between 1994 and 2003, without language restriction. The terms colonography, colography, CT colonoscopy, CT pneumocolon, virtual colonoscopy, and virtual endoscopy were used. Studies were selected if the focus was detection of colorectal polyps verified with within-subject reference colonoscopy by using key methodologic criteria based on information presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Virtual Colonoscopy (Boston, Mass). Two reviewers independently abstracted methodologic characteristics. Per-patient and per-polyp detection rates were extracted, and authors were contacted, when necessary. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity were calculated for different lesion size categories, and Forest plots were produced. Meta-analysis of paired sensitivity and specificity was conducted by using a hierarchical model that enabled estimation of summary receiver operating characteristic curves allowing for variation in diagnostic threshold, and the average operating point was calculated. Per-polyp sensitivity was also calculated.

RESULTS

Of 1398 studies considered for inclusion, 24 met our criteria. There were 4181 patients with a study prevalence of abnormality of 15%-72%. Meta-analysis of 2610 patients, 206 of whom had large polyps, showed high per-patient average sensitivity (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 73%, 98%) and specificity (97%; 95% CI: 95%, 99%) for colonography; sensitivity and specificity decreased to 86% (95% CI: 75%, 93%) and 86% (95% CI: 76%, 93%), respectively, when the threshold was lowered to include medium polyps. When polyps of all sizes were included, studies were too heterogeneous in sensitivity (range, 45%-97%) and specificity (range, 26%-97%) to allow meaningful meta-analysis. Of 150 cancers, 144 were detected (sensitivity, 95.9%; 95% CI: 91.4%, 98.5%). Data reporting was frequently incomplete, with no generally accepted format.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography seems sufficiently sensitive and specific in the detection of large and medium polyps; it is especially sensitive in the detection of symptomatic cancer. Studies are poorly reported, however, and the authors propose a minimum data set for study reporting.

Virtual colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: current status

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) (also known as ‘virtual colonoscopy’) is a noninvasive method of imaging the colon using helical CT. Although CTC has been shown to be useful for certain clinical indications, it has not yet been endorsed as a colorectal cancer screening test. The purpose of this article is to review the current status of CTC for colorectal cancer screening. CTC is an accurate method to detect colonic polyps and to select patients who would benefit from colonoscopy. The major advantages of CTC over conventional colonography include its relatively low risk and greater tolerance by patients. In this article, the CTC procedure and results of clinical trials are reviewed, as well as potential pitfalls related to CTC performance and interpretation. Finally, radiation dose, the discovery of incidental extracolonic findings with CTC, bowel preparation methods, and computer-aided diagnosis are addressed.

Multislice CT Colonography: Current Status and Limitations

CT colonography (CTC) is a promising method for colorectal cancer screening because it provides a full structural evaluation of the entire colon. It has a superior safety profile, a low rate of complications, and high patient acceptance. In addition, CTC offers the real possibility of eliminating the cathartic bowel preparation, one of the biggest obstacles to patient compliance with colorectal cancer screening. Results of CTC studies in recently published literature are extremely encouraging, demonstrating that this method of screening can detect lesions equal to or larger than 8 mm with few false-positive findings.

A retrospective evaluation of patient acceptance of computed tomography colonography ("virtual colonoscopy") in comparison with conventional colonoscopy in an average risk screening population

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient acceptance of computed tomography (CT) colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy by means of a self-assessed questionnaire.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four-hundred-and-one patients with valid address information from our patient collective were preselected. Patient acceptance was evaluated retrospectively using a self-assessed questionnaire. The patients underwent CT colonography in our institution using 4x or 16x multi-detector row (MDR) CT. Two-hundred-and-forty-six patients returned a completed questionnaire, 157 of these indicating that they had undergone both virtual and conventional colonoscopy.

RESULTS

One-hundred-and-twenty (76.4%) of the 157 patients would undergo another CT colonography if necessary, while only 14 patients would not. One-hundred-and-sixteen (73.9%) patients favored the actual examination procedure of CT colonography (P<0.0001), while only 6.4% preferred the conventional method. Preparation prior to CT colonography was experienced as more convenient than preparation prior to conventional colonoscopy (52.2% versus 14%).

CONCLUSION

CT colonography was preferred in terms of both preparation and the actual procedure itself.

Dark-lumen magnetic resonance colonography in patients with suspected sigmoid diverticulitis: a feasibility study

To assess dark-lumen magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) for the evaluation of patients with suspected sigmoid diverticulitis. Forty patients with suspected sigmoid diverticulitis underwent MRC within 72 h prior to conventional colonoscopy (CC). A three-dimensional T1-weighted volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination sequence was acquired after an aqueous enema and intravenous administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. All MRC data were evaluated by two radiologists. Based on wall thickness and focal uptake of contrast material and pericolic reaction including mesenteric infiltration on T1-weighted sequence the sigmoid colon was assessed for the presence of diverticulitis. MRC classified 17 of the 40 patients as normal with regard to sigmoid diverticulitis. However, CC confirmed the presence of light inflammatory signs in four patients which were missed in MRC. MRC correctly identified wall thickness and contrast uptake of the sigmoid colon in the other 23 patients. In three of these patients false-positive findings were observed, and MRC classified the inflammation of the sigmoid colon as diverticulitis whereas CC and histopathology confirmed invasive carcinoma. MRC detected additionally relevant pathologies of the entire colon and could be performed in cases where CC was incomplete. MRC may be considered a promising alternative to CC for the detection of sigmoid diverticulitis.

Automatic colon segmentation with dual scan CT colonography

We present a fully automated three-dimensional (3-D) segmentation algorithm to extract the colon lumen surface in CT colonography. Focusing on significant-size polyp detection, we target at an efficient algorithm that maximizes overall colon coverage, minimizes the extracolonic components, maintains local shape accuracy, and achieves high segmentation speed. Two-dimensional (2-D) image processing techniques are employed first, resulting in automatic seed placement and better colon coverage. This is followed by near-air threshold 3-D region-growing using an improved marching-cubes algorithm, which provides fast and accurate surface generation. The algorithm constructs a well-organized vertex-triangle structure that uniquely employs a hash table method, yielding an order of magnitude speed improvement. We segment two scans, prone and supine, independently and with the goal of improved colon coverage. Both segmentations would be available for subsequent polyp detection systems. Segmenting and analyzing both scans improves surface coverage by at least 6% over supine or prone alone. According to subjective evaluation, the average coverage is about 87.5% of the entire colon. Employing near-air threshold and elongation criteria, only 6% of the data sets include extracolonic components (EC) in the segmentation. The observed surface shape accuracy of the segmentation is adequate for significant-size (6 mm) polyp detection, which is also verified by the results of the prototype detection algorithm. The segmentation takes less than 5 minutes on an AMD 1-GHz single-processor PC, which includes reading the volume data and writing the surface results. The surface-based segmentation algorithm is practical for subsequent polyp detection algorithms in that it produces high coverage, has a low EC rate, maintains local shape accuracy, and has a computational efficiency that makes real-time polyp detection possible. A fully automatic or computer-aided polyp detection system using this technique is likely to benefit future colon cancer early screening.

CT colonography using different reconstruction modi

OBJECTIVE

Performing computed tomography (CT) colonography, we compared different reconstruction modi for the detection of colorectal polyps.

METHODS

The CT data of 48 patients using 16-slice helical CT were analysed in axial slices, virtual-endoscopy and colon-dissection modus.

RESULTS

The sensitivity (specificity) for the detection of colonic polyps was 94% (80%) if using "colonic-dissection" tool and 89% (80%) if using "virtual-endoscopy" tool. The difference between the virtual endoscopy and colon dissection, considering polyps up to 4.9 mm, was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction software colon dissection improves the sensitivity of CT colonography.

Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We prospectively compared the performance of low-dose multidetector computed tomographic colonography (CTC) without cathartic preparation with that of colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.

METHODS

A total of 203 patients underwent low-dose CTC without cathartic preparation followed by colonoscopy. Before CTC, fecal tagging was achieved by adding diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium to regular meals. No subtraction of tagged feces was performed. Colonoscopy was performed 3-7 days after CTC. Three readers interpreted the CTC examinations separately and independently using a primary 2-dimensional approach using multiplanar reconstructions and 3-dimensional images for further characterization. Colonoscopy with segmental unblinding was used as reference standard. The sensitivity of CTC was calculated both on a per-polyp and a per-patient basis. For the latter, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were also calculated.

RESULTS

CTC had an average sensitivity of 95.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.1%-99%) for the identification of colorectal polyps > or =8 mm. With regard to per-patient analysis, CTC yielded an average sensitivity of 89.9% (95% CI, 86%-93.7%), an average specificity of 92.2% (95% CI, 89.5%-94.9%), an average positive predictive value of 88% (95% CI, 83.3%-91.5%), and an average negative predictive value of 93.5% (95% CI, 90.9%-96%). Interobserver agreement was high on a per-polyp basis (kappa statistic range, .61-.74) and high to excellent on a per-patient basis (kappa statistic range, .79-.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose multidetector CTC without cathartic preparation compares favorably with colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.

AGA future trends report: CT colonography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) was first described more than a decade ago. Recent advances in imaging hardware and software and results of clinical trials based on new methods for performing and interpreting images suggest that CTC may now be assessed as a method for colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

The Research Policy Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association assembled a task force to review the results of recent clinical trials and quantitative mathematical models pertaining to CTC. The goal of the task force was to assess the current knowledge about CTC and to evaluate the issues that will define its impact.

RESULTS

Limitations in evaluating the current state of CTC technology include a wide variation in results of clinical trials. There are as yet insufficient data on the use of CTC in routine clinical practice. Limitations in the use of quantitative mathematical models make predictions based on such models of limited value. The cancer risk and therefore clinical importance of small colorectal polyps detected by CTC and/or nonpolypoid neoplasia not detected by CTC remains largely unknown.

CONCLUSIONS

CTC is attractive as a colon imaging modality. It is therefore anticipated that CTC will have a significant impact on the practice of gastroenterology. However, the magnitude of the impact is currently unknown. Whether the ongoing implementation of CTC will increase or decrease the number of referrals for colonoscopy or shift the procedure from colorectal cancer screening to therapeutic interventions (e.g., polypectomy) is unknown at the present time. Multidisciplinary collaboration between gastroenterology and radiology to promote effective implementation and ongoing quality assurance will be important.

Multidetector CT of the colon

Multidetector technology, enabling faster imaging, higher spatial resolution and reduction in radiation dose, increases the role of CT in colonic diagnostic. The higher spatial resolution in the z-direction also changes the way to analyze the images. Instead of reading axial sections, now the colon can be systematically assessed in 3D by scrolling through multiplanar reconstructions or in CT colonography by virtual endoscopy. With ongoing improvements in computer-aided diagnosis CT colonography becomes an alternative to fiberoptic colonocopy for screening (http://www. multiorganscreening.org). In this article we propose a CT examination protocol for the colon, describe the typical imaging findings of different colonic diseases, and summarize the current status of CT colonography.

Extracolonic findings in patients undergoing abdomino-pelvic CT for suspected colorectal carcinoma in the frail and disabled patient

AIM

The aims of this study were to evaluate the extracolonic findings identified in patients undergoing minimal preparation abdomino-pelvic CT in place of barium enema or colonoscopy for the detection of possible colorectal carcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CT technique involved helical acquisition (10 mm collimation, 1.5 pitch) following 2 days of preparation with oral contrast medium only. Extracolonic findings were evaluated in the light of subsequent follow-up and accuracy. The evaluation included assessment of the potential contribution of the extracolonic finding(s) to staging the cancer in the subset of patients who had colorectal carcinoma, and to account for the patients' presenting symptoms and signs in the remaining patients.

RESULTS

A total of 344 extracolonic findings were detected in 261 CT examinations, from amongst a total of 1077 cases (24%). Extracolonic findings were potentially important in staging in 32 of the 98 (33%) cases subsequently found to have colorectal cancer. There were 284 extracolonic findings amongst the 221 cases who proved not have colorectal cancer. One hundred and twenty-four (44%) of these 284 findings were actively followed up by clinicians, and 33 (12%) ultimately had a surgical intervention. Fifty-six percent (160/284) of the findings were determined to be correct (by further investigation, autopsy, and/or clinical follow-up); the remainder were incorrect or indeterminate (n = 56) or had no follow-up (n = 68). The commonest extracolonic findings were focal liver lesions (found in 42/1077, 4%) and abdominal aortic aneurysms (31/1077, 3%). Twenty-four (24/1077, 2%) previously unknown extracolonic malignancies were detected. Ten percent (106/1077) of the patients had extracolonic findings that could potentially have accounted for their presenting symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

CT has the added benefit, compared with colonoscopy and barium enema, of not just evaluating the colon but also of detecting extracolonic abnormalities. Such findings may be useful in staging the cancer, may explain the patient's presenting symptoms, and may detect other potentially serious disorders.

Computed Tomographic Colonography (CTC): Possibilities and Limitations of Clinical Application in Colorectal Polyps and Cancer

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe and the United States. Most colorectal cancers develop from adenomatous polyps over a number of years. Early detection of polyps eliminates the risk of subsequent carcinomas.

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a diagnostic technique detecting colorectal neoplasms. With the introduction of multidetector-row computed tomography (MD-CT), CT colonography (CTC) has gained influence as a new diagnostic tool in early detection of colonic pathologies by acquiring volumetric CT data sets of the abdomen. This volumetric data is analyzed using CTC workstations, which provide an interactive display of 2D and 3D images of the colon. In several studies, CTC revealed a high accuracy (sensitivity/patient: 83–100% and specificity/patient: 93–100%) in detecting pathological colonic changes. Furthermore, CTC is an excellent diagnostic technique for the evaluation of patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy and allows the assessment of extracolonic abdominal and pelvic organs.

In this article, the status of CT colonography as a method of detecting colonic polyps and colorectal carcinomas using single- and multidetector-row CT will be reviewed.