Extracolonic findings in an asymptomatic screening population undergoing intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography colonography

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.

Prevalence of pancreatic cystic lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging in the Chinese population

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Incidental pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are being diagnosed more frequently. However, little is known about the prevalence of PCLs in the Chinese population. The aim of the study was to assess the crude prevalence of PCLs in individuals who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who underwent MRI without pancreatic indications were included. MRI images were reviewed for the presence of pancreatic cysts. The prevalence of PCLs and high-risk PCLs in different gender and age groups was calculated. To assess the crude prevalence, the prevalence and demographic data were standardized on the basis of Chinese national population data in 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 10 987 individuals were included (7344 men). Incidental PCLs were identified in 212 individual (128 men). The prevalence of PCLs was 1.93%, and PCLs were more often discovered in women (1.74% vs 2.31%, P = 0.043). Prevalence increased with age (r = 0.804, P < 0.001). The prevalence of high-risk PCLs was 0.12% (n = 13). Gender predominance and age distribution showed no difference between high-risk PCLs and low-risk PCLs (P = 0.234 and P = 0.855), but cysts located in the pancreatic head were more likely to develop into high-risk PCLs (P = 0.001). After data standardization, the crude prevalence of PCLs was 1.31%, and PCLs were more often discovered in women (1.11% vs 1.5%, P < 0.001). The crude prevalence of high-risk PCLs was 0.07%.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic cystic lesions in the Chinese population are not rare. The prevalence of PCLs increased with age and is higher in the female population. The prevalence of high-risk PCLs should not be ignored.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: Prevalence of incidentally detected pancreatic cystic lesions in asymptomatic individuals

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are frequent incidental findings. As most PCLs require costly diagnostic evaluation and active surveillance, it is important to clarify their prevalence in asymptomatic individuals. We therefore aimed at performing a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine it.

METHODS

a systematic search was conducted and studies meeting inclusion criteria were included. The prevalence of PCLs was pooled across studies. A random effect model was used with assessment of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

17 studies, with 48,860 patients, were included. Only 3 were prospective; 5 studies were conducted in the US, 7 in Europe, 4 in Asia and 1 in Brazil. The pooled prevalence of PCLs was 8% (95% CI 4-14) with considerable heterogeneity (I² = 99.5%). This prevalence was higher in studies of higher quality, examining older subjects, smaller cohorts, and employing MRCP (24.8% vs 2.7% with CT-scan). The pooled rate of PCLs was four times higher in studies conducted in the US than in Asia (12.6% vs 3.1%). 7 studies reported the prevalence of mucinous lesions, with a pooled rate of 4.3% (95% CI 2-10; I² = 99.2%), but of 0.7% only for worrisome features or high risk stigmata.

CONCLUSION

The rate of incidentally detected PCLs is of 8%. Mucinous lesions are the most common incidentally detected PCLs, although they rarely present with potential indication for surgery. The observed different rates in the US and other geographic Areas suggest that different protocols might be necessary to help balancing costs and effectiveness of follow-up investigations in asymptomatic subjects.

Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections: Incidental Extraspinal Findings on Planning Imaging

OBJECTIVE

Planning imaging performed during CT-guided procedures may occasionally contain important incidental findings. The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize by clinical relevance the extraspinal findings detected on planning imaging for CT-guided lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four radiologists retrospectively evaluated the planning scout views and CT studies for 488 consecutive CT-guided lumbar TFESIs performed in 400 patients over a 1-year period. Incidental extraspinal findings were identified and used to characterize patients by the need for follow-up using the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS), a classification scheme originally developed to characterize incidental findings on CT colonography. Patients with C-RADS E4 findings have potentially important findings that should be communicated to the referring physician; patients with C-RADS E3 findings have findings that are likely unimportant, but workup may be indicated. All previously unknown C-RADS E3 and E4 findings discovered in the course of this research were reported to referring physicians for appropriate patient follow-up.

RESULTS

Ten of 400 (2.5%) patients were classified as C-RADS E4; the most common C-RADS E4 finding was vascular aneurysm or stenosis (4/400, 1.0%). Thirteen of 400 (3.3%) patients were classified as C-RADS E3; the most common C-RADS E3 finding was hepatomegaly (4/400, 1.0%). Of 22 patients with C-RADS E3 and E4 findings unknown to clinicians, the finding for only one (4.5%) was communicated to clinicians at the time of the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Clinically important incidental extraspinal findings were identified in 5.8% of patients on the planning imaging performed for CT-guided lumbar TFESIs. Communication of clinically important findings was poor (4.5%).

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.

Diagnostic value of computed tomography colonography (CTC) after incomplete optical colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated the role of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in patients who previously underwent incomplete optical colonoscopy (OC). We analyzed the impact of colonic lesions in intestinal segments not studied by OC and extracolonic findings in these patients.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and May 2015, 61 patients with a history of abdominal pain and incomplete OC examination were studied by CTC. CTCs were performed by 320-row CT scan in both the supine and the prone position, without intravenous administration of contrast medium. In all patients both colonic findings and extracolonic findings were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among the study group, 24 CTC examinations were negative for both colonic and extracolonic findings while 6 examinations revealed the presence of both colonic and extracolonic findings. In 24 patients CTC depicted colonic anomalies without extracolonic ones, while in 7 patients it showed extracolonic findings without colonic ones.

DISCUSSION

CTC is a noninvasive imaging technique with the advantages of high diagnostic performance, rapid data acquisition, minimal patient discomfort, lack of need for sedation, and virtually no recovery time. CTC accurately allows the evaluation of the nonvisualized part of the colon after incomplete OC and has the distinct advantage to detect clinically important extracolonic findings in patients with incomplete OC potentially explaining the patient's symptoms and conditioning their therapeutic management.

CONCLUSION

CTC accurately allows the assessment of both colonic and extracolonic pathologies representing a useful diagnostic tool in patients for whom complete OC is not achievable.

Potentially Important Extracolonic Findings at Screening CT Colonography: Incidence and Outcomes Data From a Clinical Screening Program

OBJECTIVE

The effect of detection of extracolonic findings at screening CT colonography (CTC) remains controversial. Our objective is to analyze the incidence and outcomes of unsuspected potentially significant (CT Colonography Reporting and Data System [C-RADS] extracolonic category E4) findings in a population undergoing clinical CTC screening.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Over the course of 99 months (April 1, 2004, through June 30, 2012), 7952 consecutive asymptomatic adults (3675 men and 4277 women; mean [± SD] age, 56.7 ± 7.3 years) underwent first-time screening CTC. Examinations were prospectively interpreted by radiologists within our abdominal imaging section, and extracolonic findings were recorded and categorized. Potentially significant (i.e., C-RADS extracolonic category E4) findings were retrospectively reviewed with additional analysis of follow-up (range, 2-10 years) and ultimate clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, 2.5% (202/7952) of patients had a potentially significant (C-RADS category E4) extracolonic finding for which further imaging (56%; 113/202) or clinical follow-up (44%; 89/202) was recommended. No patients had multiple category E4 findings. Twenty-two patients were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 180 patients, 68% (123/180) proved to have clinically significant disease, including 23% (42/180) with malignant or potentially malignant neoplasms and 32% (57/180) with abdominal aortic or other visceral artery aneurysms requiring treatment or surveillance. The most commonly involved organs and systems included the vascular system (26%; 53/202), the genitourinary system (18%; 36/202), the liver (15%; 30/202), the gastrointestinal system (9.9%; 20/202), the lungs (9.4%; 19/202), and the gynecologic system (6.9%; 14/202).

CONCLUSION

Potentially significant extracolonic findings in asymptomatic adults at screening CTC are uncommon (2-3% of cases). However, most of these findings (68%) will prove to be clinically significant, including a number of malignancies and aneurysms requiring treatment or surveillance.

CT colonography: accuracy, acceptance, safety and position in organised population screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. The introduction of CRC screening programmes using stool tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy, have been shown to reduce CRC-related mortality substantially. In several European countries, population-based CRC screening programmes are ongoing or being rolled out. Stool tests like faecal occult blood testing are non-invasive and simple to perform, but are primarily designed to detect early invasive cancer. More invasive tests like colonoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) aim at accurately detecting both CRC and cancer precursors, thus providing for cancer prevention. This review focuses on the accuracy, acceptance and safety of CTC as a CRC screening technique and on the current position of CTC in organised population screening. Based on the detection characteristics and acceptability of CTC screening, it might be a viable screening test. The potential disadvantage of radiation exposure is probably overemphasised, especially with newer technology. At this time-point, it is not entirely clear whether the detection of extracolonic findings at CTC is of net benefit and is cost effective, but with responsible handling, this may be the case. Future efforts will seek to further improve the technique, refine appropriate diagnostic algorithms and study cost-effectiveness.

Is intravenous contrast necessary for detection of clinically significant extracolonic findings in patients undergoing CT colonography?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether intravenous contrast (IVC) is necessary for detection of extracolonic findings (ECFs) in patients undergoing CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of CT findings in 179 cases of CTC studies performed over 18 months where both pre-contrast (NECT) and post-contrast (CECT) scans were performed in the prone and supine positions, respectively, in the same patients. All ECFs were recorded on a per patient basis and graded according to the colonography reporting and data system classification.

RESULTS

There was no significant change in E grade for the cohort (p = 0.171) between the NECT and CECT scans. On the CECT scans, additional findings were detected in 49.1% of patients. Overall, there were 27/179 (15.1%) patients graded E3 and 18/179 (10.1%) patients graded E4 on the CECT study. Compared with the NECT study, there was a decrease of 12.9% of patients graded E3 and no change in the number of patients graded E4.

CONCLUSION

With IVC administration, additional ECFs are detected in nearly half of all patients. However, there was no increase in the number of patients with clinically significant lesions. The risk-benefit ratio of routine IVC administration for CTC in symptomatic patients thus requires further evaluation.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This study reviews the utility of IVC in CTC and is thus relevant to current clinical practice at many institutions.

Extracolonic findings on CT colonography increases yield of colorectal cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of extracolonic findings when screening is undertaken by CT colonography (CTC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients completing a screening CTC from August 2003 to June 2006 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Extracolonic findings were categorized using a CTC reporting and data system that classifies findings as highly significant, likely significant, and insignificant. All final diagnoses, surgeries, malignancies, and costs of diagnostic radiology procedures were calculated for each category.

RESULTS

Of 2,277 patients (mean +/- SD age, 59 +/- 11 years; 60% white; 56% male) undergoing CTC, extracolonic findings were identified in 1,037 (46%) patients, with 787 (34.5%) insignificant and 240 (11.0%) significant findings. Evaluation of significant findings generated 280 radiology procedures and 19 surgeries over a mean follow-up time of 19 +/- 10 months. The total cost of the radiology studies was $113,179; the studies added approximately $50 extra per patient. Seven high-risk lesions were identified (six extracolonic malignancies and one large aortic aneurysm) in patients with significant findings. CTC also identified six intracolonic malignancies and three adenomas with high-grade dysplasia. When considering extracolonic findings, CTC increased the odds of identifying high-risk lesions by 78% (nine intracolonic lesions vs 16 intracolonic plus extracolonic lesions; p = 0.0156). Of the 16 intracolonic and extracolonic high-risk lesions, 11 (69%) underwent curative resection, and 5 of 11 (44.4%) were extracolonic.

CONCLUSION

CTC increased the odds of identifying high-risk lesions by 78%. CTC should be considered as an alternative to optical colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening or as a onetime procedure to identify significant treatable intracolonic and extracolonic lesions.

Extracolonic findings at CT colonography

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a validated tool for the evaluation of the colon for polyps and cancer. The technique employed for CTC includes a low-dose CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis that is typically performed without the administration of intravenous contrast. Using this technique it is possible to discover findings outside of the colon. By far, most extracolonic findings are determined to be clinically inconsequential on CTC and most patients are not recommended for further testing. However, some findings may result in additional diagnostic evaluation or intervention, which can lead to patient anxiety and increased morbidity and health care costs. Alternatively, some findings can lead to the earlier diagnosis of a clinically significant lesion, which could result in decreased patient morbidity and mortality as well as overall savings in downstream health care costs. The controversies of detecting and evaluating these incidental extracolonic findings on CTC are discussed.

Computed tomographic colonography: Hope or hype?

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a promising emerging technology for imaging of the colon. This concise review discusses the currently available data on CTC technique, test characteristics, acceptance, safety, cost-effectiveness, follow-up strategy, and extracolonic findings. In summary, CTC technique is still evolving, and further research is needed to clarify the role of automated colonic insufflation, smooth-muscle relaxants, intravenous and oral contrast, software rendering, and patient positioning. Currently, full bowel preparation is still required to achieve optimal results. The sensitivity for detecting large polyps (> 1 cm) can be as high as 85%, with specificity of up to 97%. These test characteristics are almost comparable to those of conventional colonoscopy. Patient acceptance of CTC is generally higher than that for colonoscopy, especially in patients who have never undergone either procedure. CTC is generally safe, although uncommon instances of colonic perforation have been documented. In terms of cost-effectiveness, most decision analyses have concluded that CTC would only be cost-effective if it were considerably cheaper than conventional colonoscopy. The proper follow-up strategy for small polyps or incidental extracolonic findings discovered during CTC is still under debate. At present, the exact clinical role of virtual colonoscopy still awaits determination. Even though widespread CTC screening is not available today, in the future there may eventually be a role for this technology. Technological advances in this area will undoubtedly continue, with multi-detector row CT scanners allowing thinner collimation and higher resolution images. Stool-tagging techniques are likely to evolve and may eventually allow for low-preparation CTC. Perceptual and fatigue-related reading errors can potentially be minimized with the help of computer-aided detection software. Further research will define the exact role of this promising technology in our diagnostic armamentarium.