Virtual colonoscopy vs conventional colonoscopy in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer--a prospective trial of 150 patients

Imaging and Metabolic Diagnostic Methods in the Stage Assessment of Rectal Cancer

Rectal cancer (RC) is a prevalent malignancy with significant morbidity and mortality rates. The accurate staging of RC is crucial for optimal treatment planning and patient outcomes. This review aims to summarize the current literature on imaging and metabolic diagnostic methods used in the stage assessment of RC. Various imaging modalities play a pivotal role in the initial evaluation and staging of RC. These include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and endorectal ultrasound (ERUS). MRI has emerged as the gold standard for local staging due to its superior soft tissue resolution and ability to assess tumor invasion depth, lymph node involvement, and the presence of extramural vascular invasion. CT imaging provides valuable information about distant metastases and helps determine the feasibility of surgical resection. ERUS aids in assessing tumor depth, perirectal lymph nodes, and sphincter involvement. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each diagnostic modality is essential for accurate staging and treatment decisions in RC. Furthermore, the integration of multiple imaging and metabolic methods, such as PET/CT or PET/MRI, can enhance diagnostic accuracy and provide valuable prognostic information. Thus, a literature review was conducted to investigate and assess the effectiveness and accuracy of diagnostic methods, both imaging and metabolic, in the stage assessment of RC.

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.

Can Computed Tomography Colonography Replace Optical Colonoscopy in Detecting Colorectal Lesions?: State of the Art

Colorectal cancer is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Optical colonoscopy (OC) is widely accepted as the reference standard for the screening of colorectal polyps and cancers, and computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a valid alternative to OC. The purpose of this review was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of OC and CTC for colorectal lesions. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, and 18 articles were included. CTC has emerged in recent years as a potential screening examination with high accuracy for the detection of colorectal lesions. However, the clinical application of CTC as a screening technique is limited because it is highly dependent on the size of the lesions and has poor performance in detecting individual lesions <5 mm or flat lesions, which, although rarely, can have a malignant potential.

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.

The yield and patient factors associated with CT colonography C-RADS results in a non-screening patient population

OBJECTIVES

To determine the proportion of diagnostic computed tomography colonography (CTC) Reporting and Data System (C-RADS) categories in a non-screening population, and which patient factors are associated with a positive CTC (C2-4), a non-diagnostic CTC (C0), and potentially relevant extracolonic findings (ECF, E3-4).

METHODS

Diagnostic CTCs performed at a single academic center from 2017 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. For each examination, the indications, age, sex, admission status, and C-RADS categories were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression was performed of patient demographic factors and clinical indications, with adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

1373 CTCs were included. The mean age was 66.4 ± 13 years (range 24-97). There were 782 women and 75 inpatients. The number of CTCs reported as C0-C4 were 194/1373 (14.1%), 970/1373 (70.6%), 77/1373 (5.6%), 86/1373 (6.3%), and 46/1373 (3.4%), respectively, and 134/1373 (9.8%), 960/1373 (69.9%), 173/1373 (12.6%), and 106/1373 (7.7%) CTCs were reported as E1-4, respectively. Factors that demonstrated the strongest associations were as follows: with C2-4, age groups 50-79 (OR 2.8, 95% confidence interval 1.4-6.1), 80-89 (6.2, 2.9-14.5) and ≥ 90 (7.6, 2.0-29.1), and inpatients (3.4, 1.8-6.4); with C0, age groups 50-79 (5.9, 2.2-24.4), 80-89 (9.8, 3.4-41.8), and ≥ 90 (22.5, 5.8-113.0), incomplete colonoscopy (3.2, 2.0-5.1) and melena or gastrointestinal bleeding (4.1, 1.8-9.4); and with E3-4, age groups 50-79 (1.6, 1.0-2.9), 80-89 (2.0, 1.1-3.9), and ≥ 90 (3.2, 1.2-8.8), and inpatients (2.3, 1.3-3.9).

CONCLUSION

Older age is increasingly associated with a positive test, a non-diagnostic test and potentially relevant ECF. Inpatients are also associated with positive tests and E3-4 findings. Symptoms are not strongly associated with a positive CTC.

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.

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.

Using computed tomography colonography in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer - a prospective study in a university hospital in South America

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our study was to report the results of the implementation of computed tomography colonography in a university hospital setting serving a Brazilian population at high risk of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

After creating a computed tomography colonography service in our institution, 85 patients at high risk of colorectal cancer underwent computed tomography colonography followed by a same-day optical colonoscopy from September 2010 to May 2012. The overall accuracy of computed tomography colonography in the detection of lesions ≥6 mm was compared to that of optical colonoscopy (direct comparison). All colonic segments were evaluated using quality imaging (amount of liquid and solid residual feces and luminal distension). To assess patient acceptance and preference, a questionnaire was completed before and after the computed tomography colonography and optical colonoscopy. Fisher's exact test was used to measure the correlations between colonic distension, discomfort during the exam, exam preference and interpretation confidence.

RESULTS

Thirteen carcinomas and twenty-two lesions ≥6 mm were characterized. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of computed tomography colonography were 100%, 98.2% and 98.6%, respectively. Computed tomography colonography was the preferred method of investigation for 85% of patients. The preparation was reported to cause only mild discomfort for 97.6% of patients. According to the questionnaires, there was no significant relationship between colonic distension and discomfort (p>0.05). Most patients (89%) achieved excellent bowel preparation. There was a statistically significant correlation between the confidence perceived in reading the computed tomography colonography and the quality of the preparation in each colonic segment (p≤0.001). The average effective radiation dose per exam was 7.8 mSv.

CONCLUSION

It was possible to institute an efficient computed tomography colonography service at a university hospital that primarily assists patients from the public health system, with high accuracy, good acceptance and effective radiation doses. Our results seem to be comparable to other centers of excellence and fall within acceptable published guidelines, showing that a successful computed tomography colonography program can be reproduced in a South American population screened in a university hospital.

Extracolonic findings (ECF) on CT colonography (CTC) in patients presenting with colorectal symptoms

BACKGROUND

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is now an established method for imaging the colon and rectum in the screening and symptomatic setting. Additional benefit of CTC is the ability to assess for extracolonic findings especially in patients presenting with colorectal symptoms.

PURPOSE

To determine prevalence of extracolonic findings (ECF) in symptomatic patients undergoing CTC and determine accuracy of CTC for exclusion of significant abdominal disease and extracolonic malignancy (ECM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 1359 unenhanced prone and postcontrast supine CTC studies were performed between March 2002 and December 2007. ECF were retrospectively classified according to C-RADS criteria into E1 to E4 findings. For ECM, a gold standard of clinical and/or radiological follow-up supplemented with data from the regional cancer registry with a median follow-up of 42 months was created. Sensitivity and negative predictive values for ECM was calculated.

RESULTS

Following exclusions, 1177 CTCs were analyzed. Of 1423 extracolonic findings reported, 328/1423 (23%) E3 and 100/1423 (7%) E4 (including six eventual FP studies) findings were identified. Thirty-two ECMs were confirmed following further investigations. Seven further small ECMs were detected during the entire follow-up, of which two were potentially visible in retrospect (false-negative studies). Additional tests were generated from 55/1177 (4.7%) studies. Sensitivity and negative predictive value for ECM was 94.1% (95% CI 78.9-98.9%) and 99.8% (95% CI 99.3-99.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

One in 37 patients were found to have an ECM. Two potentially detectable cancers were missed. Only a small proportion of patients underwent additional work-up.

Suspected extracolonic neoplasms detected on CT colonography: literature review and possible outcomes

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study summarizes the literature on the detection of cancer among indeterminate extracolonic findings on computed tomographic (CT) colonography in five targeted organs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed for English-language literature published between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2010. We describe extracolonic findings in the kidney, lung, liver, pancreas, and ovary suspect for malignancy as they are associated with high mortality. For each organ, we calculated the median prevalence, positive predictive value (PPV), and false positive rate of malignancy and a pooled false-positive rate across studies.

RESULTS

Of 91 publications initially identified, 24 were eligible for review. Indeterminate renal masses on CT colonography had 20.5% median PPV and low pooled false positive rate of 1.3% (95% confidence interval 0.6-2.0). In contrast, indeterminate masses of the lung, liver, pancreas, and ovary had low PPV (median values ranged from 0% to 3.8%). Indeterminate masses of the ovary resulted in the highest pooled false-positive rate of 2.2%. Results were similar in studies of both screening and nonscreening populations. We estimated the probability of false positive results through the detection of significant extracolonic findings as 46 per 1000 for men and 68 per 1000 for women.

CONCLUSIONS

Indeterminate renal masses newly detected on CT colonography have an estimated one in five chance of malignancy and therefore warrant further follow-up to provide a definitive diagnosis. Conversely, indeterminate masses of the lung, liver, pancreas, and ovary are associated with high false positive rates and merit more conservative clinical follow-up.

Evolving role of computed tomographic colonography in colon cancer screening and diagnosis

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a relatively new imaging modality for the examination of patients for colorectal polyps and cancer. It has been validated in its accuracy for the detection of colon cancer and larger polyps (more than likely premalignant). CTC, however, is not widely accepted as a primary screening modality in the United States at present by many third-party payers, including Medicare, and its exact role in screening is evolving. Moreover, there has been opposition to incorporating CTC as an accepted screening instrument, especially by gastroenterologists. Heretofore, optical colonoscopy has been the mainstay in this screening. We discuss these issues and the continuing controversies concerning CTC.

Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

In recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) has attracted considerable attention. In order to better understand patient preferences for CTC versus colonoscopy, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. Data sources included published studies, abstracts and book chapters, in any language, with publication dates from 1995 through February 2012, and with prospective or retrospective enrollment of diagnostic or screening patients who had undergone both procedures and explicit assessment of their preference for colonoscopy versus CTC. A predefined algorithm identified eligible studies using computer and hand searches performed by two independent investigators. We used a mixed effects model to pool preference differences (defined as the proportion of subjects who preferred CTC minus the proportion who preferred colonoscopy for each study). Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 5616 subjects. In 16 of these studies, patients preferred CTC over colonoscopy, while colonoscopy was preferred in three studies. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, an overall pooled preference difference was not calculated. Stratified analysis revealed that studies published in radiology journals (preference difference 0.590 [95 % CI 0.485, 0.694]) seemed more likely than studies in gastroenterology (0.218 [-0.015-0.451]) or general medicine journals (-0.158 [-0.389-0.072]) to report preference for CTC (p<0.001). Studies by radiology authors showed a trend towards stronger preference for CTC compared with studies by gastroenterology authors. Symptomatic patients expressed no preference, but screening patients preferred CTC. There was no difference in preferences between studies using "masked" and "unmasked" preference ascertainment methods. Three studies featuring limited bowel preparations for CTC reported marked preference for CTC. There was no evidence of publication bias, while cumulative and exclusion analysis did not show any temporal trend or dominant study. Limitations included data heterogeneity and preference ascertainment limitations. In conclusion, most included studies reported preference for CTC. On stratified analysis, screening patients preferred CTC while diagnostic patients showed no preference. Studies published in radiology journals showed significantly stronger preference for CTC compared with studies in gastroenterology or general medicine journals.

CT colonography: patient tolerance of laxative free fecal tagging regimen versus traditional cathartic cleansing

PURPOSE

The aim of our prospective study was to compare patient tolerance of laxative free fecal tagging regimen (LFT) versus traditional cathartic cleansing (TC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

264 patients, at average risk for development of colorectal cancer (105 men and 159 women; mean age 62 years ± 5 SD), underwent 32 rows CT colonography. Patients were alternatively placed into 2 study groups: Group 1 (n = 132) followed TC and Group 2 (n = 132) LFT. TC protocol consisted of no fiber diet and Phospho-lax(®) 80 mL in 2 L of water the day before imaging. LFT protocol consisted of no fiber diet and ingestion with meals of 30 mL of water-soluble iodinated contrast agent (Gastrografin(®)) for 2 days before imaging. No frank laxative drugs were administered. All studies were reviewed in a combined fashion, primary 2D followed by 3D endoluminal and dissected views. After the examination all patients were asked to provide a feedback about tolerance to the each bowel preparation. The first 30 patients of each group were also investigated with optical colonoscopy (OC) used as gold standard to confirm our diagnosis (Group 1* and Group 2*).

CONCLUSIONS

LFT reduces discomfort and seems to improve diagnostic accuracy of CTC.

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 in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the sensitivity of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in diagnosing colorectal cancer and to explore the reasons why these cancers are missed on CTC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent CTC in the 56-month period from 1 January 2004 to 1 September 2008, and all cases of colorectal cancer recorded in the National Cancer Registry database from 1 January 2004 to 1 December 2008, were identified. Cases from the two data sets were then matched to identify all patients in whom CTC had been performed more than 6 weeks before a histological report was available. CTC reports and patients' records were reviewed to determine the cancer site, and images were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 3888 patients underwent CTC over a 56-month interval. After matching with the National Cancer Registry database, colorectal cancer was identified in 131 patients, whereas it had been suspected on CTC in 123 patients. One of the patients with missed cancer was excluded, leaving seven (5.3 per cent) missed cancers, four of which were located in the caecum. Five cancers were missed because of technical limitations of CTC and two were due to perceptive errors. Systems errors and severe patient co-morbidity contributed to three of the cases. The sensitivity of CTC for colorectal cancer was 95 (95 per cent confidence interval 89 to 98) per cent.

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity of 95 per cent for CTC in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer compares favourably with that of double-contrast barium enema (92 per cent) and colonoscopy (94 per cent).

Performance of CT colonography in clinical trials

The amount of data accumulated in trials of CT colonography (CTC) has greatly increased in the past decade. The information from these studies is shaping clinical practice and public health policy regarding screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). This article examines the performance of CTC in clinical trials for individuals at average risk and increased risk for CRC. It also addresses the efficacy of CTC after incomplete colonoscopy, when colon preparations are reduced or eliminated, and in academic versus nonacademic environments. The data suggest that CTC is effective especially for the detection of larger lesions and when more advanced imaging technology is used.

CT colonography with decreased purgation: balancing preparation, performance, and patient acceptance

OBJECTIVE

Reduction or elimination of catharsis with fecal tagging enhances the tolerability of CT colonography (CTC) and may increase compliance with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations. We systematically reviewed studies that prospectively evaluated performance and patient satisfaction with decreased-purgation CTC and with optical colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

The nine studies reviewed showed moderate-to-good performance for decreased-purgation CTC; however, data are limited, and study design and data presentation are inconsistent. Further study of decreased-purgation CTC and standardization of terminology are needed.