Noncathartic CT colonography to screen for colorectal neoplasia in subjects with a family history of colorectal cancer

Comparison of Diatrizoate and Iohexol for Patient Acceptance and Fecal-Tagging Performance in Noncathartic CT Colonography

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare diatrizoate and iohexol regarding patient acceptance and fecal-tagging performance in noncathartic computed tomography colonography.

METHODS

This study enrolled 284 volunteers with fecal tagging by either diatrizoate or iohexol at an iodine concentration of 13.33 mg/mL and an iodine load of 24 g. Patient acceptance was rated on a 4-point scale of gastrointestinal discomfort. Two gastrointestinal radiologists jointly analyzed image quality, fecal-tagging density and homogeneity, and residual contrast agent in the small intestine. The results were compared by the generalized estimating equation method.

RESULTS

Patient acceptance was comparable between the 2 groups (3.95 ± 0.22 vs 3.96 ± 0.20, P = 0.777). The diatrizoate group had less residual fluid and stool than the iohexol group ( P = 0.019, P = 0.004, respectively). There was no significant difference in colorectal distention, residual fluid, and stool tagging quality between the 2 groups (all P 's > 0.05). The mean 2-dimensional image quality score was 4.59 ± 0.68 with diatrizoate and 3.60 ± 1.14 with iohexol ( P < 0.001). The attenuation of tagged feces was 581 ± 66 HU with diatrizoate and 1038 ± 117 HU with iohexol ( P < 0.001). Residual contrast agent in the small intestine was assessed at 55.3% and 62.3% for the diatrizoate group and iohexol group, respectively ( P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with iohexol, diatrizoate had better image quality, proper fecal-tagging density, and more homogeneous tagging along with comparable excellent patient acceptance, and might be more suitable for fecal tagging in noncathartic computed tomography colonography.

PPV and Detection Rate of mt-sDNA Testing, FIT, and CT Colonography for Advanced Neoplasia: A Hierarchic Bayesian Meta-Analysis of the Noninvasive Colorectal Screening Tests

BACKGROUND. Noninvasive tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and prevention limit the need for invasive colonoscopy to follow up positive test results. However, the relative performance characteristics of available noninvasive tests have not yet been adequately compared. OBJECTIVE. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of the available noninvasive CRC screening tests, including multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) testing, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and CT colonography (CTC), with an emphasis on comparison of PPV and detection rate (DR) for advanced neoplasia (AN; encompassing cases of advanced adenomas and CRC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. After systematic searches of MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases, 10 mt-sDNA, 27 CTC, and 88 FIT published screening studies involving 25,132, 33,493, and 2,355,958 asymptomatic adults, respectively, were included. Meta-analysis with hierarchic Bayesian modeling was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA guidelines to determine test positivity rates (TPRs) leading to optical colonoscopy, as well as PPVs and DRs for both AN and CRC. Different positivity thresholds were considered for FIT and CTC. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. Point estimates (with 95% credible intervals) from pooled Bayesian meta-analysis combining all thresholds for FIT and stratifying CTC results by a polyp size threshold of 6 mm or larger (CTC6) and 10 mm or larger (CTC10) were calculated. TPR was 13.5% (10.9-16.6%) for mt-sDNA testing, 6.4% (5.8-7.2%) for FIT, 13.4% (11.4-15.6%) for CTC6, and 6.6% (5.2-7.7%) for CTC10. AN PPV was 26.9% (95% credible interval, 21.8-33.2%) for mt-sDNA testing, 31.8% (29.3-34.5%) for FIT, 34.4% (27.2-41.0%) for CTC6, and 61.0% (54.0-70.0%) for CTC10. CRC PPV was 2.4% (1.5-3.9%) for mt-sDNA testing, 4.9% (4.3-5.3%) for FIT, 3.5% (2.5-4.8%) for CTC6, and 6.0% (4.3-8.0%) for CTC10. The DR for AN was 3.4% (95% credible interval, 2.5-4.8%) for mt-SDNA, 2.0% (1.8-2.3%) for FIT, 4.8% (4.0-6.5%) for CTC6, and 4.0% (3.0-4.6%) for CTC10. When FIT is restricted to a lower threshold (< 10 μg Hb/g feces), its performance profile is similar to that of mt-sDNA testing, although available data are limited. AN PPV odds ratios (relative to CTC10 as the reference) were 0.24 (95% credible interval, 0.17-0.33) for mt-sDNA testing, 0.30 (0.24-0.45) for FIT, and 0.33 (0.25-0.47) for CTC6. CONCLUSION. Among noninvasive CRC screening tests, CTC with a polyp size threshold of 10 mm or larger most effectively targets AN, preserving detection while also decreasing unnecessary colonoscopies compared with mt-sDNA testing and FIT. CLINICAL IMPACT. CTC performed with a polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral set at 10 mm or larger represents the most effective and efficient noninvasive screening test for CRC prevention and detection.

A novel volume-reduced CT colonography regimen using hypertonic laxative (polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid): randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility of bowel preparation using a hypertonic laxative (polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid, PEG + Asc) for CT colonography (CTC) and to examine the volume limit of laxative.

METHODS

In one institution, patients who met the indications for CTC were enrolled and randomly assigned to CTC with regimen A (800 ml PEG + Asc), B (600 ml PEG + Asc), or C (400 ml PEG + Asc). Sodium diatrizoate was given orally for fecal tagging. On the previous day, patients ate low-residue meals and took the assigned lavage solution after dinner. A reader blinded to the preparation graded residual stool/fluid and fecal tagging quality in six segments of the colorectum. The primary outcome was a proportion of colon segments without stool. One hundred twenty segments in 20 patients with each regimen were needed to show a non-inferiority margin of 15%, assuming 85% of no stool.

RESULTS

A total of 360 segments in 60 patients were analyzed. There were 83% of segments with no stool in regimen A, 89% in regimen B, and 88% in regimen C. Using the delta method, the 95% confidence interval of the risk difference (6.7%) between regimens A and B was - 2.2% to 15.6%, and the risk difference (5.0%) between regimens A and C was - 4.1% to 14%, both within the non-inferiority margin. Residual fluid and fecal tagging quality were also within the non-inferiority margin. No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel CTC regimen using hypertonic laxative demonstrated optimal colon cleansing effectiveness even with the lowest volume of laxative (UMIN000022851).

KEY POINTS

• A novel CTC regimen using a hypertonic laxative is feasible. • The lowest volume of laxative provides excellent colon imaging. • However, the lowest volume of laxative did not improve patient acceptance.

Dual-energy CT characteristics of colon and rectal cancer allows differentiation from stool by dual-source CT

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) characteristics of colorectal cancer and investigate effectiveness of DECT method in differentiating tumor from stool in patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients with colorectal tumors were enrolled. Staging was performed by DECT (80-140 kV) using dual-source CT after rectal air insufflation and without bowel preparation. Both visual and quantitative analyses were performed at 80 kV and 140 kV, on iodine map and virtual noncontrast (VNC) images.

RESULTS

All colorectal tumors had homogeneous pattern on iodine map. Stools demonstrated heterogeneous pattern in 86% (43/50) and homogeneous pattern in 14% (7/50) on iodine maps and were less visible on VNC images. Median density of tumors was 54 HU (18-100 HU) on iodine map and 28 HU (11-56 HU) on VNC images. Median density of stool was 36.5 HU (8-165 HU) on iodine map and -135.5 HU (-438 HU to -13 HU) on VNC images. The density of stools was significantly lower than tumors on both iodine map and VNC images (P < 0.001). The cutoff point of density measurement on VNC images was -1 HU with area under the curve of 1 and a sensitivity and specificity of 100%.

CONCLUSION

Density or visual analysis of iodine map and VNC DECT images allow accurate differentiation of tumor from stool.

CT Colonographic Screening of Patients With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer: Comparison With Adults at Average Risk and Implications for Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to compare rates of lesion detection at CT colonographic (CTC) screening of adults without symptoms who had and who did not have a family history of colorectal cancer according to American Cancer Society guidelines and to consider the clinical implications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over 134 months, consecutively registered CTC cohorts of adults without symptoms who had (n = 156; 88 [56.4%] women; 68 [43.6%] men; mean age, 56.3 years) and who did not have (n = 8857; 4757 [53.7%] women; 4100 [46.3%] men; mean age, 56.6 years) an American Cancer Society-defined family history of colorectal cancer (first-degree relative with diagnosis before age 60 years or two first-degree relatives with diagnosis at any age) were compared for relevant colorectal findings.

RESULTS

For the family history versus no family history cohorts, the frequency of all nondiminutive polyps (≥ 6 mm) reported at CTC was 23.7% versus 15.5% (p = 0.007); small polyps (6-9 mm), 13.5% versus 9.1% (p = 0.068); and large polyps (≥ 10 mm), 10.2% versus 6.5% (p = 0.068). The rate of referral for colonoscopy was greater for the family history cohort (16.0% vs 10.5%; p = 0.035). However, the frequencies of proven advanced adenoma (4.5% vs 3.2%; p = 0.357), nonadvanced adenoma (5.1% vs 2.6%; p = 0.070), and cancer (0.0% vs 0.4%; p = 0.999) were not significantly increased. The difference in positive rates between the two cohorts (11.5% vs 4.3%; p < 0.001) was primarily due to nonneoplastic findings of no colorectal cancer relevance, such as small hyperplastic polyps, diverticular disease, and false-positive CTC findings.

CONCLUSION

Although the overall CTC-positive and colonoscopy referral rates were higher in the family history cohort, the clinically relevant frequencies of advanced neoplasia and cancer were not sufficiently increased to preclude CTC screening. These findings support the use of CTC as a front-line screening option in adults with a family history of colorectal cancer.

Diagnostic Performance and Patient Acceptance of Reduced-Laxative CT Colonography for the Detection of Polypoid and Non-Polypoid Neoplasms: A Multicenter Prospective Trial

Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance of reduced-laxative computed tomographic (CT) colonography without computer-aided detection (CAD) for the detection of colorectal polypoid and non-polypoid neoplasms in a population with a positive recent fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Materials and Methods Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained. This multicenter prospective trial enrolled patients who had positive FIT results. Reduced-laxative CT colonography and colonoscopy were performed on the same day. Patients received 380 mL polyethylene glycol solution, 20 mL iodinated oral contrast agent, and two doses of 20 mg mosapride the day before CT colonography. The main outcome measures were the accuracy of CT colonography for the detection of neoplasms 6 mm or larger in per-patient and per-lesion analyses and a survey of patient perceptions regarding the preparation and examination. The Clopper-Pearson method was used for assessing the 95% confidence intervals of per-patient and per-lesion accuracy. Survey scores were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon and χ² tests. Results Three hundred four patients underwent both CT colonography and colonoscopy. Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CT colonography for detecting neoplasms 10 mm or larger were 0.91 (40 of 44), 0.99 (255 of 258), 0.93 (40 of 43), and 0.98 (255 of 259), respectively; these values for neoplasms 6 mm or larger were 0.90 (71 of 79), 0.93 (207 of 223), 0.82 (71 of 87), and 0.96 (207 of 215), respectively. Per-lesion sensitivities for detection of polypoid and non-polypoid neoplasms 10 mm or larger were 0.95 (40 of 42) and 0.67 (six of nine), respectively; those for neoplasms 6 mm or larger were 0.90 (104 of 115) and 0.38 (eight of 21), respectively (P < .05 for both). Patient acceptance of preparation and examination with CT colonography was significantly higher than that with colonoscopy, and 62% (176 of 282) of patients would choose CT colonography as the first examination if they have a positive FIT result in the future. Conclusion Reduced-laxative CT colonography without CAD is accurate in the detection of polypoid neoplasms 6 mm or larger but is less accurate in the detection of non-polypoid neoplasms. Reduced-laxative CT colonography has high patient acceptance and is an efficient triage examination for patients with a positive FIT. ^© RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Familial colorectal cancer screening: When and what to do?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and represents a clinical challenge. Family members of patients affected by CRC have an increased risk of CRC development. In these individuals, screening is strongly recommended and should be started earlier than in the population with average risk, in order to detect neoplastic precursors, such as adenoma, advanced adenoma, and nonpolypoid adenomatous lesions of the colon. Fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is a non invasive, widespread screening method that can reduce CRC-related mortality. Sigmoidoscopy, alone or in addition to FOBT, represents another screening strategy that reduces CRC mortality. Colonoscopy is the best choice for screening high-risk populations, as it allows simultaneous detection and removal of preneoplastic lesions. The choice of test depends on local health policy and varies among countries.

Update on colon cancer screening: recent advances and observations in colorectal cancer screening

There have been many recent advances and observations regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. New CRC surveillance guidelines have been published to help endoscopists with the management of important clinical issues such as serrated polyps. There have been several important large studies examining the impact of endoscopic process measures such as bowel prep, withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate on CRC screening. In addition, there have been technical advances in CT colonography including the development of exams that do not require a bowel preparation. Other new technology such as colon capsule endoscopy may aid endoscopists in the challenge of completing the evaluation of the colon in those patients with an incomplete colonoscopy. Finally, there have been large studies which examine the performance characteristics of the so-called non-invasive CRC screening tests such as fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and fecal DNA.

Screening for colorectal cancer: the role of CT colonography

Colorectal cancer, which is the third most frequent cancer and the cancer with the second highest mortality rate, frequently develops on a pre-existing adenomatous polyps whose slow growth and malignant degeneration can be identified and controlled by effective screening. Although most lesions can be detected and resected during optical colonoscopy (OC), the cost, risk and poor acceptance of this technique by the general population means that it is reserved for high-risk or very high-risk individuals. The fecal occult blood test (FOBT) (such as the Hemoccult(®)) is proposed for intermediate-risk individuals between 50 and 75 years old. However, despite the improvements that have been made in this method, sensitivity is low, and although it is simple, it is too rarely used. CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) is proposed in case of failure, additional risk factors or refusal of optical colonoscopy in high-risk patients or in the presence of a positive FOBT. It should also be proposed as an alternative to the FOBT test to patients who accept the constraints of this technique.