AGA standards for gastroenterologists for performing and interpreting diagnostic computed tomography colonography: 2011 update

Are we underutilising computer tomography colonography in Australia?

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a safe and accurate tool for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. CTC requires dedicated radiological expertise and demonstrates a high sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection, which is similar to optical colonoscopy (OC). Newer preparation techniques for CTC, such as faecal tagging without catharsis might further improve both the tolerability and accuracy of the test. While exposure to ionising radiation, lack of capacity for therapeutic intervention and potentially diminished sensitivity for flat serrated polyps are limitations of CTC, the technique has a role in select populations. CTC should be considered in frail or elderly patients at high anaesthetic risk for OC, patients with stricturing colonic lesions as well as incomplete colonoscopy, or in patients at risk of delayed access to timely OC. With an ever‐growing demand for endoscopic services, increased utilisation of CTC could reduce waiting times for colonoscopy, thereby broadening access to timely and effective CRC screening. Further research is required to improve further the detection of flat lesions, including sessile serrated polyps.

Multicentre, prospective, randomised study comparing the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in a screening population (the TOPAZ study)

OBJECTIVE

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has shown promise for colorectal neoplasia detection compared with optical colonoscopy (OC), but has not been compared with other screening tests in average risk screening patients.

DESIGN

Patients 50 to 75 years of age (African Americans, 45-75 years) were randomised to CCE or CT colonography (CTC) and subsequent blinded OC. The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield of polyps ≥6 mm with CCE or CTC. Secondary endpoints included accuracy for size and histology, examination completeness, number/proportion of subjects with polyps and adenomas ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, subject satisfaction and safety.

RESULTS

From 320 enrolled subjects, data from 286 (89.4%) were evaluable. The proportion of subjects with any polyp ≥6 mm confirmed by OC was 31.6% for CCE versus 8.6% for CTC (pPr non-inferiority and superiority=0.999). The diagnostic yield of polyps ≥10 mm was 13.5% with CCE versus 6.3% with CTC (pPr non-inferiority=0.9954). The sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps ≥6 mm was 79.2% and 96.3% while that of CTC was 26.8% and 98.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps ≥10 mm was 85.7% and 98.2% compared with 50% and 99.1% for CTC. Both tests were well tolerated/safe.

CONCLUSION

CCE was superior to CTC for detection of polyps ≥6 mm and non-inferior for identification of polyps ≥10 mm. CCE should be considered comparable or superior to CTC as a colorectal neoplasia screening test, although neither test is as effective as OC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02754661.

Consequences of CT colonography in stenosing colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

In patients with stenosing colorectal cancer (CRC), visualization of the entire colon prior to surgery is recommended to exclude synchronous tumors. Therefore, most centers combine computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with staging CT. The aims of this study were to evaluate the yield and clinical implications of CTC.

METHODS

In this multicenter retrospective study, patients with stenosing CRC that underwent CTC and subsequent surgery between April 2013 and November 2015 were included. Result of the CTC, its influence on the surgical treatment plan, and final histology report were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-two patients with stenosing CRC were included. Nine (5.6 %) synchronous cancers proximal to the stenosing tumor were suspected with CTC. In four of nine patients, the CTC did not change the primary surgical plan because the tumors were located in the same surgical segment. In five of nine patients, CTC changed the surgical treatment plan. Three of these five patients underwent an extended resection and the presence of the tumors was confirmed. Two of these three synchronous CRCs were also visible on abdominal staging CT. In the other two patients, the result of CTC was false positive which led to an unnecessary extended resection in one patient.

CONCLUSION

The yield of CTC was relatively low. In only three patients (1.9 %), CTC correctly changed the primary surgical plan, but in two of them, the tumor was also visible on abdominal staging CT. Moreover, in two patients, CTC was false positive. The clinical value of CTC in stenosing CRC appears to be limited.

Reassessing medicare trends in diagnostic CT colonography after achieving CPT code category I status

PURPOSE

Compare national trends in utilization and coverage of diagnostic (non-screening) computed tomography colonography (CTC) in the Medicare population before and after achieving Current Procedural Terminology(®) (CPT) Category I code status in 2010.

METHODS

Claims by provider type and location for diagnostic CTC were identified between 2005 and 2013 using Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files. Frequencies of billed and denied services were used to calculate denial rates for CTC and abdominal computed tomography (CT). PubMed search for articles with "CT colonography" in abstract or title during 1997-2013 was performed. Publications were recorded yearly and matched to CTC denial rates.

RESULTS

Annual Medicare claims for diagnostic CTC increased 212% during 2005-2009 in Category III status and increased 27.4% during 2009-2013 after implementation of Category I codes. Claims for abdominal CT rose 13.4% over the same overall period. Denial rates decreased from 70% to 32.8% between 2005 and 2009, and fluctuated between 24.7 and 30.6% thereafter. Denial rates for abdominal CT remained constant (4.1%-4.6%). From 2005 to 2013, services grew most in the private office (1678-7293) and hospital outpatient (1644-6449) settings with radiologists performing 93.3% of CTC. 1037 CTC publications were identified which increased 3567% between 1997 (3) and 2008 (107), plateaued until 2010 (114) and declined thereafter (75 in 2013).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic CTC grew dramatically from 2005 to 2009, but slowed thereafter; even after achieving CPT Category I code status in 2010. Medicare denial rates declined during early years but later stabilized which paralleled a slowing in new peer-reviewed research. CTC continues to be performed predominately by radiologists in the outpatient setting.

Feasibility of computed tomography colonography as a diagnostic procedure in colon cancer screening in India

Computed Tomography Colonography (CTC) is a medical imaging technology used in identifying polyps and colon cancer masses in the large intestine. The technique has evolved a great deal since its invention and has become a routine diagnostic procedure in Western countries due to its non invasiveness and ease of use. The objective of our study was to explore the possibility of CTC application in Indian hospitals. This paper gives an overview of the procedure and its commercial viability. The explanation begins with the domain aspects from gastroenterologist perspective, the new way of thinking in polyp classification, the technical components of CTC procedure, and how engineering solutions have helped clinicians in solving the complexities involved in colon diagnosis. The colon cancer statistics in India and the results of single institution study we carried out with retrospective data is explained. By considering the increasing number of patients developing colon malignancies, the practicality of CTC in Indian hospitals is discussed. This paper does not reveal any technical aspects (algorithms) of engineering solutions implemented in CTC.

Does training and experience influence the accuracy of computed tomography colonography interpretation?

AIM: To evaluate the effect of experience on the accuracy rate of computed tomography colonography (CTC) interpretation and patient preferences/satisfaction for CTC and colonoscopy.

METHODS: A prospective, non-randomized, observational study performed in a single, tertiary care center involving 90 adults who underwent CTC followed by colonoscopy on the same day. CTC was interpreted by an abdominal imaging radiologist and then a colonoscopy was performed utilizing segmental un-blinding and re-examination as required. A radiology resident and two gastroenterology (GI) fellows blinded to the results also interpreted the CTC datasets independently. Accuracy rates and trend changes were determined for each reader to assess for a learning curve.

RESULTS: Among 90 patients (57% male) aged 55 ± 8.9 years, 39 polyps ≥ 6 mm were detected in 20 patients and 13 polyps > 9 mm in 10 patients. Accuracy rates were 88.9% (≥ 6 mm) and 93.3% (> 9 mm) for the GI Radiologist, 89.8% (≥ 6 mm) and 98.9% (> 9 mm) for the Radiology Resident and 86.7% and 95.6% (≥ 6 mm) and 87.8% and 94.4% (> 9 mm) for each of the GI fellows respectively. The reader’s accuracy rate did not change significantly with the percentage change rate ranging between -1.7 to 0.9 (P = 0.12 to 0.56). Patients considered colonoscopy more satisfactory than CTC (30% vs 4%, P < 0.0001), they felt less anxiety during colonoscopy (36% vs 7%, P < 0.0001), they experienced less pain or discomfort during colonoscopy compared to CTC (69% vs 4%, P < 0.0001) and colonoscopy was preferred by 77% of the participants as a repeat screening test for the future.

CONCLUSION: No statistically significant learning curve was identified in CTC interpretation suggesting that further study is required to identify the necessary training to adequately interpret CTC scans.

Magnetic resonance colonography for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy is the preferred screening test for colorectal neoplasia; the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) detects neoplasias with low levels of sensitivity. Computed tomographic colonography detects neoplasias with high levels of sensitivity but involves exposure to radiation. We investigated whether magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) can be used to screen for colorectal adenomas and cancers.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 286 asymptomatic adults (40-82 years old) who underwent 3 Tesla MRC and colonoscopic examinations on the same day. FOBT was performed before bowel preparation. Colonoscopists were initially blinded to the findings on MRC and unblinded after withdrawal from the respective segments. Sensitivities for adenoma and per-patient sensitivities and specificities were calculated based on the unblinded results of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

We detected 133 adenomas and 2 cancers in 86 patients; 37 adenomas were ≥6 mm, and 20 adenomas were advanced. Sensitivities of MRC and colonoscopy for adenomas ≥6 mm were 78.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.8-90.2) and 97.3% (95% CI, 85.8-99.9); for advanced adenomas these values were 75% (95% CI, 50.9-91.3) and 100% (95% CI, 83.2-100.0), respectively. MRC identified 87.1% (95% CI, 70.2-96.4), colonoscopy 96.8% (95% CI, 83.3-99.9), and FOBT 10.0% (95% CI, 2.1-26.5) of individuals with adenomas ≥6 mm and 83.8% (95% CI, 58.6-96.4), 100% (95% CI, 81.5-100.0), and 17.6% (95% CI, 3.8-43.4) of individuals with advanced neoplasia. Specificities of MRC, colonoscopy, and FOBT for individuals with adenomas ≥6 mm were 95.3% (95% CI, 91.9-97.5), 96.9% (95% CI, 93.9-98.6), and 91.8% (95% CI, 87.6-94.9), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

3 Tesla MRC detects colorectal adenomas ≥6 mm and advanced neoplasia with high levels of sensitivity and specificity. Although MRC detects colorectal neoplasia with lower levels of sensitivity than colonoscopy, it strongly outperforms one-time FOBT.

Evaluation of colonic lesions and pitfalls in CT colonography: a systematic approach based on morphology, attenuation and mobility

Computed tomographic colonography is a reliable technique for the detection and classification of neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions of the colon. It is based on a thin-section CT dataset of the cleansed and air-distended colon, acquired in prone and supine position. Two-dimensional and 3D projections are used in combination for image interpretation. The evaluation of CT colonography datasets is based on two steps, lesion perception to detect a polyp candidate and image interpretation to correctly characterize colonic filling defects. A thorough knowledge of the morphologic and attenuation characteristics of common colonic lesions and artifacts facilitates characterization of the findings. The purpose of this review article is to give an overview of the key CT colonographic imaging criteria to correctly characterize common colorectal lesions and to identify typical pitfalls and pseudolesions.

Computed tomographic colonography: ready for prime time?

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a noninvasive method to evaluate the colon and has received considerable attention in the last decade as a colon-imaging tool. The technique has also been proposed as a potential primary colon cancer-screening method in the United States. The accuracy of the technique for the detection of large lesions seems to be high, perhaps in the range of colonoscopy. Overall, the field is rapidly evolving. Available data suggest that CT colonography, although a viable colon cancer screening modality in the United States, is not ready for widespread implementation, largely because of the lack of standards for training and reading and the limited number of skilled readers.