Comparison study of different bowel preparation regimens and different fecal-tagging agents on tagging efficacy, patients’ compliance, and diagnostic performance of computed tomographic colonography: preliminary study. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33:657-665. [PMID: 19820488 DOI: 10.1097/rct.0b013e3181926570]

Pilot study on efficacy of reduced cathartic bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of reduced cathartic bowel preparation with 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-4000 electrolyte solution and 10 mg bisacodyl enteric-coated tablets for computed tomographic colonography (CTC).

METHODS: Sixty subjects who gave informed consent were randomly assigned to study group A, study group B or the control group. On the day prior to CTC, subjects in study group A were given 20 mL 40% wt/vol barium sulfate suspension before 3 mealtimes, 60 mL 60% diatrizoate meglumine diluted in 250 mL water after supper, and 10 mg bisacodyl enteric-coated tablets 1 h before oral administration of 2 L PEG-4000 electrolyte solution. Subjects in study group B were treated identically to those in study group A, with the exception of bisacodyl which was given 1 h after oral PEG-4000. Subjects in the control group were managed using the same strategy as the subjects in study group A, but without administration of bisacodyl. Residual stool and fluid scores, the attenuation value of residual fluid, and discomfort during bowel preparation in the three groups were analyzed statistically.

RESULTS: The mean scores for residual stool and fluid in study group A were lower than those in study group B, but the differences were not statistically significant. Subjects in study group A showed greater stool and fluid cleansing ability than the subjects in study group B. The mean scores for residual stool and fluid in study groups A and B were lower than those in the control group, and were significantly different. There was no significant difference in the mean attenuation value of residual fluid between study group A, study group B and the control group. The total discomfort index during bowel preparation was 46, 45 and 45 in the three groups, respectively, with no significant difference.

CONCLUSION: Administration of 10 mg bisacodyl enteric-coated tablets prior to or after oral administration of 2 L PEG-4000 electrolyte solution enhances stool and fluid cleansing ability, and has no impact on the attenuation value of residual fluid or the discomfort index. The former is an excellent alternative for CTC colorectum cleansing

Reduced cathartic bowel preparation for CT colonography: prospective comparison of 2-L polyethylene glycol and magnesium citrate

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare adequacy of colonic cleansing, adequacy of solid stool and fluid tagging, and patient acceptance by using reduced-volume, 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) versus magnesium citrate bowel preparations for CT colonography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was approved by the institutional Committee on Human Research and was compliant with HIPAA; all patients provided written consent. In this randomized, investigator-blinded study, 50 patients underwent oral preparation with either a 2-L PEG or a magnesium citrate solution, tagging with oral contrast agents, and subsequent CT colonography and segmentally unblinded colonoscopy. The residual stool (score 0 [best] to 3 [worst]) and fluid (score 0 [best] to 4 [worst]) burden and tagging adequacy were qualitatively assessed. Residual fluid attenuation was recorded as a quantitative measure of tagging adequacy. Patients completed a tolerance questionnaire within 2 weeks of scanning. Preparations were compared for residual stool and fluid by using generalized estimating equations; the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the qualitative tagging score, mean residual fluid attenuation, and adverse effects assessed on the patient experience questionnaire.

RESULTS

The mean residual stool (0.90 of three) and fluid burden (1.05 of four) scores for PEG were similar to those for magnesium citrate (0.96 [P = .58] and 0.98 [P = .48], respectively). However, the mean fecal and fluid tagging scores were significantly better for PEG (0.48 and 0.28, respectively) than for magnesium citrate (1.52 [P < .01] and 1.28 [P < .01], respectively). Mean residual fluid attenuation was higher for PEG (765 HU) than for magnesium citrate (443 HU, P = .01), and mean interpretation time was shorter for PEG (14.8 minutes) than for magnesium citrate (18.0 minutes, P = .04). Tolerance ratings were not significantly different between preparations.

CONCLUSION

Reduced-volume PEG and magnesium citrate bowel preparations demonstrated adequate cleansing effectiveness for CT colonography, with better tagging and shorter interpretation time observed in the PEG group. Adequate polyp detection was maintained but requires further validation because of the small number of clinically important polyps.

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.

Computed tomographic colonography

This article provides basic information about computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and reviews the preparation, methods, and tools required for the procedure. The clinical uses for CTC (screening/diagnosis of colon cancer and colonic obstruction) are outlined, and its accuracy and validity are compared with other diagnostic methods. A summary of the benefits and risks of the test are presented and the current practicalities for implementation are addressed.

Bowel Preparation Regimen for Computed Tomography Colonography

Purpose

This study was designed to determine whether a reduction in oral contrast dose and a change in timing of administration will result in less residual material in the colonic lumen.

Method

We retrospectively assessed, in a blinded fashion, the amount and nature of residual material in the colon in 40 patients who received computed tomography colonography. Half of the cohort received the standard bowel-preparation regimen, whereas a sex- and age-matched test arm received the modified regimen. A scoring system that consisted of metrics to quantify the nature and extent of residual fluid and solid material was defined. Image analysis was conducted with the investigators blinded to the group assignment of each patient. Three different trained observers independently reviewed and scored the 6 colonic segments in supine and prone positions for each patient in the cohort. In cases in which interobserver discrepancies existed, the observers reanalyzed the images together to come to an agreement on scores.

Results

The new bowel-preparation regimen resulted in significantly less “sticky coat” ( P < .005), a problematic phenomenon in which the colonic mucosa is covered in a thin coating of residual contrast and fecal material. There was no difference in the amount of residual fluid. Fewer masses of stool were noted with the new preparation, but this was not found to be statistically significant.

Conclusion

A new bowel-preparation regimen that consisted of lower quantities of contrast administered earlier in the day preceding computed tomography colonography resulted in a lower incidence of adherent contrast and fecal matter. The reduction of this “sticky coat” problem not only improved radiologic analysis of the colon but may permit same-day therapy via colonoscopy if indicated on imaging.

Electronic cleansing for CT colonography: does it help CAD software performance in a high-risk population for colorectal cancer?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of computer-aided detection (CAD) for CT colonography (CTC) with and without electronic cleansing (EC) in a high-risk population tagged with a faecal tagging (FT) protocol.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients underwent CTC followed by same-day colonoscopy. All patients underwent bowel preparation and FT with barium and gastrografin. Each CTC dataset was processed with colon CAD with and without EC. Per-polyp sensitivity was calculated. The average number of false-positive (FP) results and their causes were also analysed and compared.

RESULTS

Eighty-six polyps were detected in 29 patients. Per-polyp sensitivities of CAD with EC (93.8% and 100%) were higher than those without EC (84.4% and 87.5%) for polyps >or=6 mm and >or=10 mm, respectively. However, the differences were not significant. The average number (6.3) of FPs of CAD with EC was significantly larger than that (3.1) without EC. The distribution of FPs in both CAD settings was also significantly different. The most common cause of FPs was the ileocaecal valve in both datasets. However, untagged faeces was a significantly less common cause of FPs with EC, EC-related artefacts being more common.

CONCLUSION

Electronic cleansing has the potential to improve per-polyp sensitivity of CTC CAD, although the significantly larger number of FPs with EC remains to be improved.