Colorectal Cancer: Performance and Evaluation for CT Colonography Screening- A Multicenter Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial

Paris classification of colonic polyps using CT colonography: prospective cohort study of interobserver variation

BACKGROUND

The Paris classification categorises colorectal polyp morphology. Interobserver agreement for Paris classification has been assessed at optical colonoscopy (OC) but not CT colonography (CTC). We aimed to determine the following: (1) interobserver agreement for the Paris classification using CTC between radiologists; (2) if radiologist experience influenced classification, gross polyp morphology, or polyp size; and (3) the extent to which radiologist classifications agreed with (a) colonoscopy and (b) a combined reference standard.

METHODS

Following ethical approval for this non-randomised prospective cohort study, seven radiologists from three hospitals classified 52 colonic polyps using the Paris system. We calculated interobserver agreement using Fleiss kappa and mean pairwise agreement (MPA). Absolute agreement was calculated between radiologists; between CTC and OC; and between CTC and a combined reference standard using all available imaging, colonoscopic, and histopathological data.

RESULTS

Overall interobserver agreement between the seven readers was fair (Fleiss kappa 0.33; 95% CI 0.30-0.37; MPA 49.7%). Readers with < 1500 CTC experience had higher interobserver agreement (0.42 (95% CI 0.35-0.48) vs. 0.33 (95% CI 0.25-0.42)) and MPA (69.2% vs 50.6%) than readers with ≥ 1500 experience. There was substantial overall agreement for flat vs protuberant polyps (0.62 (95% CI 0.56-0.68)) with a MPA of 87.9%. Agreement between CTC and OC classifications was only 44%, and CTC agreement with the combined reference standard was 56%.

CONCLUSION

Radiologist agreement when using the Paris classification at CT colonography is low, and radiologist classification agrees poorly with colonoscopy. Using the full Paris classification in routine CTC reporting is of questionable value.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Interobserver agreement for radiologists using the Paris classification to categorise colorectal polyp morphology is only fair; routine use of the full Paris classification at CT colonography is questionable.

KEY POINTS

• Overall interobserver agreement for the Paris classification at CT colonography (CTC) was only fair, and lower than for colonoscopy. • Agreement was higher for radiologists with < 1500 CTC experience and for larger polyps. There was substantial agreement when classifying polyps as protuberant vs flat. • Agreement between CTC and colonoscopic polyp classification was low (44%).

ESR Essentials: Imaging in colorectal cancer-practice recommendations by ESGAR

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant global health concern. Diagnostic imaging, using different modalities, has a pivotal role in CRC, from early detection (i.e., screening) to follow-up. The role of imaging in CRC screening depends on each country's approach: if an organized screening program is in place, the role of CT colonography (CTC) is limited to the study of either individuals with a positive stool test unwilling/unable to undergo colonoscopy (CC) or in patients with incomplete CC. Although CC is the most common modality to diagnose CRC, CRC can be also incidentally detected during a routine abdominal imaging examination or at the emergency room in patients presenting with intestinal occlusion/subocclusion or perforation. Staging is a crucial aspect of CRC management, guiding treatment decisions and providing valuable prognostic information. An accurate local staging is mandatory in both rectal and colon cancer to drive the appropriate therapeutic workflow. Important limitations of US, CT, and MR in N-staging can be partially solved by FDG PET/CT. Distant staging is usually managed by CT, with MR and FDG PET/CT which can be used as problem-solving techniques. Follow-up is performed according to the general recommendations of the oncological societies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: It is essential to summarize each phase of colorectal cancer workup, differentiating the management for colon and rectal cancer supported by the main international guidelines and literature data, with the aim to inform the community on the best practice imaging in colorectal cancer. KEY POINTS: • Colorectal cancer is a prevalent disease that lends itself to imaging at each stage of detection and management. • Various imaging modalities can be used as adjuncts to, or in place of, direct visualization methods of screening and are necessary for evaluating metastatic disease. • Reevaluation of follow-up strategies should be considered depending on patients' individual risk of recurrence.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Practice Guidelines for Computed Tomography Colonography

Colon cancer is the third most common malignancy in Canada. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) provides a creditable and validated option for colon screening and assessment of known pathology in patients for whom conventional colonoscopy is contraindicated or where patients self-select to use imaging as their primary modality for initial colonic assessment. This updated guideline aims to provide a toolkit for both experienced imagers (and technologists) and for those considering launching this examination in their practice. There is guidance for reporting, optimal exam preparation, tips for problem solving to attain high quality examinations in challenging scenarios as well as suggestions for ongoing maintenance of competence. We also provide insight into the role of artificial intelligence and the utility of CTC in tumour staging of colorectal cancer. The appendices provide more detailed guidance into bowel preparation and reporting templates as well as useful information on polyp stratification and management strategies. Reading this guideline should equip the reader with the knowledge base to perform colonography but also provide an unbiased overview of its role in colon screening compared with other screening options.

Targeted Training Reduces Search Errors but Not Classification Errors for Hepatic Metastasis Detection at Contrast-Enhanced CT

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Methods are needed to improve the detection of hepatic metastases. Errors occur in both lesion detection (search) and decisions of benign versus malignant (classification). Our purpose was to evaluate a training program to reduce search errors and classification errors in the detection of hepatic metastases in contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After Institutional Review Board approval, we conducted a single-group prospective pretest-posttest study. Pretest and posttest were identical and consisted of interpreting 40 contrast-enhanced abdominal CT exams containing 91 liver metastases under eye tracking. Between pretest and posttest, readers completed search training with eye-tracker feedback and coaching to increase interpretation time, use liver windows, and use coronal reformations. They also completed classification training with part-task practice, rating lesions as benign or malignant. The primary outcome was metastases missed due to search errors (<2 seconds gaze under eye tracker) and classification errors (>2 seconds). Jackknife free-response receiver operator characteristic (JAFROC) analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 31 radiologist readers (8 abdominal subspecialists, 8 nonabdominal subspecialists, 15 senior residents/fellows) participated. Search errors were reduced (pretest 11%, posttest 8%, difference 3% [95% confidence interval, 0.3%-5.1%], P = .01), but there was no difference in classification errors (difference 0%, P = .97) or in JAFROC figure of merit (difference -0.01, P = .36). In subgroup analysis, abdominal subspecialists demonstrated no evidence of change.

CONCLUSION

Targeted training reduced search errors but not classification errors for the detection of hepatic metastases at contrast-enhanced abdominal CT. Improvements were not seen in all subgroups.

Effect of visceral fat area on the accuracy of preoperative CT-N staging of colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of visceral fat area (VFA) on the accuracy of preoperative CT-N staging of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and imaging data of 385 CRC patients who underwent surgical resection for colorectal cancer between January 2018 and July 2021. Preoperative CT-N staging and imaging features were determined independently by two radiologists. Using postoperative pathology as the gold standard, patients were divided into accurately and incorrectly staged groups, and clinical and imaging characteristics were compared between the two groups. VFA and subcutaneous fat area (SFA) at the L3 vertebral level, sex, age, BMI, tumor location, size, and tumor circumference ratio (TCR) were included. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the independent factors influencing the accuracy of preoperative N staging of colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

Of the 385 patients enrolled, 259 (67.27%) were in the preoperative N-stage accurate staging group, and 126 (32.73%) were in the incorrectly staged group. Univariate analysis showed that there were significant differences in BMI, tumor location, VFA, SFA, size and TCR between the two groups (P<0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that VFA (95% CI: 1.277, 3.813; P=0.005) and TCR (95% CI: 1.649, 17.545; P=0.005) were independent factors affecting the accuracy of N staging. The optimal cutoff points for VFA and TCR in predicting incorrect staging were 110 cm2 and 0.675, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal cancer patients with lower VFA and higher TCR and preoperative CT-N staging had an increased risk for diagnostic errors.

Single CT Appointment for Double Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is the Time Ripe?

Annual screening of lung cancer (LC) with chest low-dose computed tomography (CT) and screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) with CT colonography every 5 years are recommended by the United States Prevention Service Task Force. We review epidemiological and pathological data on LC and CRC, and the features of screening chest low-dose CT and CT colonography comprising execution, reading, radiation exposure and harm, and the cost effectiveness of the two CT screening interventions. The possibility of combining chest low-dose CT and CT colonography examinations for double LC and CRC screening in a single CT appointment is then addressed. We demonstrate how this approach appears feasible and is already reasonable as an opportunistic screening intervention in 50–75-year-old subjects with smoking history and average CRC risk. In addition to the crucial role Computer Assisted Diagnosis systems play in decreasing the test reading times and the need to educate radiologists in screening chest LDCT and CT colonography, in view of a single CT appointment for double screening, the following uncertainties need to be solved: (1) the schedule of the screening CT; (2) the effectiveness of iterative reconstruction and deep learning algorithms affording an ultra-low-dose CT acquisition technique and (3) management of incidental findings. Resolving these issues will imply new cost-effectiveness analyses for LC screening with chest low dose CT and for CRC screening with CT colonography and, especially, for the double LC and CRC screening with a single-appointment CT.