CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population

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.

Update on Flexible Sigmoidoscopy, Computed Tomographic Colonography, and Capsule Colonoscopy

This article reviews alternative colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests, including flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), computed tomography (CT) colonography, and colon capsule endoscopy. FS has abundant and convincing evidence supporting its use for CRC screening and is a commonly used CRC test worldwide. CT colonography has demonstrated convincing results for CRC screening, but concerns regarding cost, accuracy for flat or sessile neoplasia, reproducibility, extracolonic findings, and lack of coverage have limited its use and development. Colon capsule endoscopy has demonstrated encouraging results for polyp detection in average-risk individuals, but is not approved for CRC screening at the current time.

Bowel preparation in CT colonography: Is diet restriction necessary? A randomised trial (DIETSAN)

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether diet restriction affects quality of colon cleansing and patient tolerance during reduced bowel preparation for CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

Asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were enrolled in this pragmatic, single-centre, randomised trial. All patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio, blocks of ten) to receive a reduced bowel preparation and faecal tagging with (Diet-Restriction-Group [DR]) or without (No-Diet-Restriction-Group [NDR]) dietary restriction. Five readers performed a blinded subjective image analysis, by means of 4-point Likert-scales from 0 (highest score) to 3 (worst score). Endpoints were the quality of large bowel cleansing and tolerance to the assigned bowel preparation regimen. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (URomLSDBAL1).

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients were randomly allocated to treatments (48 in NDR-group, 47 in DR-group). Both groups resulted in optimal colon cleansing. The mean residual stool (0.22, 95%CI 0.00-0.44) and fluid burden (0.39, 95%CI 0.25-0.53) scores for patients in DR-group were similar to those in patients in NDR-group (0.25, 95%CI 0.03-0.47 [p = 0.82] and 0.49, 95%CI 0.30-0.67 [p = 0.38], respectively). Tolerance was significantly better in NDR-group.

CONCLUSION

A reduced bowel preparation in association with faecal tagging and without any dietary restriction demonstrated optimal colon cleansing effectiveness for CTC, providing better patient compliance compared with dietary restriction.

KEY POINTS

• Dietary restriction in reduced bowel preparation regimen can be avoided. • The quality of colon cleansing is not affected by dietary restriction. • The quality of faecal tagging is not affected by dietary restriction. • Avoidance of dietary restriction improves patients' tolerance for CTC.

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.

Controversies in colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and a good candidate for screening programmes. However, there is controversy concerning which of the available screening tests should be used.

SUMMARY

There is general agreement that screening for CRC in the asymptomatic population should begin at the age of 50. Several different screening methods are available which can be separated into those that mainly detect cancers: faecal occult blood tests [guaiac (FOBT) and immunochemical (FIT)], genetic stool tests, blood tests and the M2-pyruvate kinase (M2-PK) test. Methods that detect cancers and polyps are colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT-colonography (CT-C) and colon capsule endoscopy. The only tests for which a reduction in CRC mortality compared to no screening have been proven in randomized trials are FOBT and sigmoidoscopy. Several trials suggest that FIT are superior to FOBT in terms of detection rates of cancers and advanced adenomas and possibly compliance. There is indirect evidence suggesting efficacy of colonoscopy as a screening test. The role of CT-C is controversial. There is data suggesting a good sensitivity for neoplasia >9 mm with a lower sensitivity for smaller neoplasia. However, radiation exposure is considered a major limitation in some countries. Unresolved questions include the lesion cut-off for referral to colonoscopy and work-up of extracolonic findings. For other methods, like genetic stool testing using newer markers, blood tests, capsule endoscopy and M2-PK, there is currently insufficient data on screening of the asymptomatic population. Key Messages: Colorectal screening is recommended and should be performed in the form of an organized programme. If detection of early-stage cancers is the aim of a screening programme, FIT seem to be superior to FOBT. If detection and removal of adenomas is the aim of a screening programme, endoscopic methods seem to be good alternatives. Sigmoidoscopy is easier to perform but will likely only have an effect on distal cancers. Colonoscopy is more invasive but enables inspection of the whole colon. The role of CT-C, capsule endoscopy, genetic stool tests, blood tests and M2-PK is currently unknown.

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

PURPOSE

To prospectively assess the diagnostic performance of noncathartic computed tomographic (CT) colonography in the detection of clinically relevant colorectal lesions (≥6 mm polyps or masses) in a well-defined cohort of first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), using colonoscopy and histologic review as the standard of reference.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval was obtained, and all subjects provided written informed consent. Consecutive patients admitted with CRC (index cases) were prospectively evaluated, and those who agreed to contact their first-degree relatives who were at least 40 years old were included. Available first-degree relatives were invited to undergo noncathartic CT colonography (200 mL of diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium). Colonoscopy was performed the following day, and findings from CT colonography were disclosed for each segment. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CT colonography were assessed for detecting subjects with any lesion at least 6 mm, any lesion at least 10 mm, and advanced neoplasia at least 6 mm. Colonoscopy with segmental unblinding and histologic diagnosis were used as the standard of reference. Matching between findings from CT colonography and colonoscopy was allowed when lesions were located in the same or adjacent colon segments and when the size difference was 50% or less.

RESULTS

Three hundred four first-degree relatives (median age, 47 years; age range, 40-79 years; 46.7% women) identified from 221 index cases were included. Overall, CT colonography helped identify 17 of 22 subjects with polyps measuring at least 6 mm (sensitivity, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59, 0.95) and helped correctly classify as negative 278 of 282 subjects without lesions measuring at least 6 mm (specificity, 0.99; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.00). CT colonography helped detect eight of nine subjects with polyps measuring at least 10 mm as well as eight of nine subjects with advanced neoplasia measuring at least 6 mm (sensitivity, 0.89 for both). Per-subject positive and negative predictive values for lesions measuring at least 6 mm were 0.81 (17 of 21 subjects; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.97) and 0.98 (282 of 287 subjects; 95% CI: 0.96, 0.99), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Noncathartic CT colonography is an effective screening method in first-degree relatives of patients with CRC.

Are two readers more reliable than one? A study of upper neck ligament scoring on magnetic resonance images

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies typically employ either a single expert or multiple readers in collaboration to evaluate (read) the image results. However, no study has examined whether evaluations from multiple readers provide more reliable results than a single reader. We examined whether consistency in image interpretation by a single expert might be equal to the consistency of combined readings, defined as independent interpretations by two readers, where cases of disagreement were reconciled by consensus.

Methods

One expert neuroradiologist and one trained radiology resident independently evaluated 102 MRIs of the upper neck. The signal intensities of the alar and transverse ligaments were scored 0, 1, 2, or 3. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. They repeated the grading process after 3–8 months (second evaluation). We used kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to assess agreement between the initial and second evaluations for each radiologist and for combined determinations. Disagreements on score prevalence were evaluated with McNemar’s test.

Results

Higher consistency between the initial and second evaluations was obtained with the combined readings than with individual readings for signal intensity scores of ligaments on both the right and left sides of the spine. The weighted kappa ranges were 0.65-0.71 vs. 0.48-0.62 for combined vs. individual scoring, respectively. The combined scores also showed better agreement between evaluations than individual scores for the presence of grade 2–3 signal intensities on any side in a given subject (unweighted kappa 0.69-0.74 vs. 0.52-0.63, respectively). Disagreement between the initial and second evaluations on the prevalence of grades 2–3 was less marked for combined scores than for individual scores (P ≥ 0.039 vs. P ≤ 0.004, respectively). ICCs indicated a more reliable sum score per patient for combined scores (0.74) and both readers’ average scores (0.78) than for individual scores (0.55-0.69).

Conclusions

This study was the first to provide empirical support for the principle that an additional reader can improve the reproducibility of MRI interpretations compared to one expert alone. Furthermore, even a moderately experienced second reader improved the reliability compared to a single expert reader. The implications of this for clinical work require further study.

Reliability of change in lumbar MRI findings over time in patients with and without disc prosthesis--comparing two different image evaluation methods

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reliability of change in lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings evaluated retrospectively by direct comparison of images and by non-comparison.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pre-treatment and 2-year follow-up MRI was performed in 126 patients randomized to disc prosthesis surgery or non-surgical treatment. Two experienced radiologists independently evaluated progress and regress for Modic changes, disc findings, and facet arthropathy (FA) at L3/L4, L4/L5, and L5/S1, both by non-comparison and by comparison of initial and follow-up images. FA was evaluated at all levels, and other findings at non-operated levels. We calculated prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) values for interobserver agreement. The impact of an adjacent prosthesis (which causes artefacts) and image evaluation method on PABAK was assessed using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Image comparison indicated good interobserver agreement on progress and regress (PABAK 0.63-1.00) for Modic changes, posterior high-intensity zone, disc height, and disc contour at L3-S1 and for nucleus pulposus signal and FA at L3/L4; and moderate interobserver agreement (PABAK 0.46-0.59) on decreasing nucleus signal and increasing FA at L4-S1. Image comparison indicated lower (but fair) interobserver agreement (PABAK 0.29) only for increasing FA at L5/S1 in patients with prosthesis in L4/L5 and/or L5/S1. An adjacent prosthesis had no overall impact on PABAK values (p ≥ 0.22). Comparison yielded higher PABAK values than non-comparison (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding changes in lumbar MRI findings over time, comparison of images can provide moderate or good interobserver agreement, and better agreement than non-comparison. An adjacent prosthesis may not reduce agreement on change for most findings.

Can radiographers be trained to triage CT colonography for extracolonic findings?

OBJECTIVES

Radiographers have been shown to be capable CT colonography observers. We evaluated whether radiographers can be trained to triage screening CT colonography for extracolonic findings.

METHODS

Eight radiographers participated in a structured training program. They subsequently evaluated extracolonic findings in 280 low-dose CT colonograms (cases). This dataset contained 66 cases with possibly important findings (E3) and 27 cases with probably important findings (E4) [classification based on the highest classified finding (C-RADS)]. The first 40 and last 40 CT colonograms were identical test cases. Immediate feedback was given after each reading, except for test cases. Radiographers triaged cases based on C-RADS classification and indicated the need for a radiologist read. We constructed learning curves for correct case triaging by calculating moving averages.

RESULTS

In the final test series, 84/120 (70 %) cases with E3 or E4 findings and 139/200 (70 %) without E3 or E4 findings were correctly triaged. Correct identification of cases with E3 findings improved with training from 46/88 (52 %) to 62/88 (70 %) (P < 0.0001) but not for E4 findings [both 22/32 (69 %) P = 1.00].

CONCLUSIONS

Radiographers improve after training in correctly triaging extracolonic findings at CT colonography but do not reach a high enough accuracy to consider their structural involvement in screening.

KEY POINTS

Radiographers were trained to triage CT colonography for extracolonic findings. After training, radiographers improved sensitivity for likely unimportant findings. After training, radiographers did not improve sensitivity for possibly important findings. Radiographers should probably not be expected to identify all extracolonic findings.

Complications of CT colonography: a review

Since its inception, one of the main advantages of computed tomography colonography (CTC) over colonoscopy has been its assumed superior safety profile. However CTC is not without complication and adverse events are well described. Although the risks of insufflation, bowel preparation, contrast media and radiation dose are very small, they are not insignificant. This review discusses the potential hazards and complications associated with the technique, and discuss precautions, which may lessen the risk of occurrence.

Partial preparation computed tomographic colonography: a feasibility study

We retrospectively evaluated computed tomographic colonography examinations of patients who have had a partial bowel preparation and compared the quality of their preparation with patients who have had a full bowel preparation. In total, 27 patients undergoing computed tomographic colonography examination (10 patients with partial bowel preparation and 17 with full bowel preparation) had their examinations retrospectively reviewed by three independent radiologists in a blinded manner, with evaluation of residual stool, distention, residual fluid, and overall bowel preparation quality. Six colon segments were evaluated individually and independently for these four variables (a total of 161 segments tested). Comparisons were made with the Mann-Whitney test between the partial preparation group and the full preparation group. Partial preparation included stool and fluid tagging plus 20 mg of bisacodyl orally; full preparation included stool and fluid tagging plus 2 L of polyethylene glycol solution. No significant clinical difference was found in colon preparation between the partial and full bowel preparation groups--when evaluated with individual colon segments or by independent readers. Interreader correlation was high. This pilot study indicates that full bowel preparation is not required for diagnostic-quality computed tomographic colonography examination. Further evaluation of this partial bowel preparation regimen is warranted.

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.

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.

National CT colonography trial (ACRIN 6664): comparison of three full-laxative bowel preparations in more than 2500 average-risk patients

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to compare the effect of three different full-laxative bowel preparations on patient compliance, residual stool and fluid, reader confidence, and polyp detection at CT colonography (CTC).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A total of 2531 patients underwent CTC followed by colonoscopy for the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) National CTC Trial. Of this total, 2525 patients used one of three bowel preparations with bisacodyl tablets and stool and fluid tagging: 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG); 90 mL of phosphosoda; or 300 mL of magnesium citrate. Patients reported percent compliance with the bowel preparation and radiologists graded each CTC examination for the amount of residual fluid and stool on a scale from 1 (none) to 4 (nondiagnostic). Reader confidence for true-positive findings was reported on a 5-point scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high). Sensitivity and specificity for detecting polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 1 cm compared with colonoscopy were calculated for each preparation.

RESULTS

The most commonly prescribed preparation was phosphosoda (n = 1403) followed by PEG (n = 1020) and magnesium citrate (n = 102). Phosphosoda had the highest patient compliance (p = 0.01), least residual stool (p < 0.001), and highest reader confidence versus PEG for examinations with polyps (p = 0.06). Magnesium citrate had significantly more residual fluid compared with PEG and phosphosoda (p = 0.006). The sensitivity and specificity for detecting colon polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 1 cm did not differ significantly between preparations.

CONCLUSION

Polyp detection was comparable for all three preparations, although phosphosoda had significantly higher patient compliance and the least residual stool.

Iatrogenic perforation at colonic imaging

AIM

Adequate colonic imaging is generally an invasive procedure with attendant risks, particularly perforation. Endoscopy, barium enema and computed tomographic colonography (CTC) are the main techniques for investigating patients with symptoms of, or screening for, colorectal cancer. The potential complications of these investigations have to be weighed against the benefits. This article reviews the literature on the incidence, presentation and management of iatrogenic colonic perforation at colonic imaging.

METHOD

A literature review of relevant studies was undertaken using PubMed, Cochrane library and personal archives of references. Manual cross-referencing was performed, and relevant references from selected articles were reviewed. Studies reporting complications of endoscopy, barium enema and CT colonography were included in this review.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were identified comprising 640,433 colonoscopies, with iatrogenic perforation recorded in 585 patients (0.06%). The reported perforation rate with double-contrast barium enema was between 0.02 and 0.24%. Serious complications with CTC were infrequent, though nine perforations were reported in a case series of 24,365 patients (0.036%) undergoing CTC.

CONCLUSION

Perforation remains an infrequent and almost certainly under-reported, complication of all colonic imaging modalities. Risk awareness, early diagnosis and active management of iatrogenic perforation minimizes an adverse outcome.

Colorectal cancer screening in women: an underutilized lifesaver

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents the third most common cancer diagnosed and a major cause of cancer-related deaths in women. Despite strong evidence that early screening decreases colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates, colorectal cancer screening rates in women still lag significantly behind screening rates for breast and cervical cancers. Additionally, women have been found to be less likely than men to undergo CRC screening. This is despite the fact that the overall lifetime risk for the development of colorectal carcinoma is similar in both sexes. Barriers to screening have been found to be different for women compared with men. Screening adherence in women also appears to be associated with various social and demographic factors.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography (CTC) is an accurate, minimally invasive, and well-tolerated examination that is newly endorsed by the American Cancer Society, U.S. Multisociety Task Force, and the American College of Radiology. Improved screening compliance may occur in women with further dissemination of CTC.

Non-laxative CT colonography with barium-based faecal tagging: is additional phosphate enema beneficial and well tolerated?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerance of an additional phosphate enema prior to non-laxative CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

71 patients (mean age 80 years, 28 male, 43 female) underwent non-laxative CTC following 4 oral doses of diluted 2% w/w barium sulphate. Patients were invited to self-administer a phosphate enema 2 h before CTC. An experienced observer graded the volume of retained stool (1 (nil) to 4 (>75% bowel circumference coated)), retained fluid ((1 (nil) to 4 (>50% circumference obscured)), retained stool tagging quality (1 (untagged) to 5 (≥75% to 100%) tagged) and confidence a polyp ≥6 mm could be excluded (yes/no) for each of six colonic segments. Tolerance of the enema was assessed via questionnaire. Data were analysed between those using and not using the enema by Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact test. 18/71 patients declined the enema.

RESULTS

There was no reduction in residual stool volume with enema use compared with non-use either overall (mean score 2.6 vs 2.7, p = 0.76) or in the left colon (mean 2.3 vs 2.4, p = 0.47). Overall tagging quality was no different (mean score 4.4 vs 4.3, p = 0.43). There was significantly more retained left colonic fluid post enema (mean score 1.9 vs 1.1, p<0.0001), and diagnostic confidence in excluding polyps was significantly reduced (exclusion not possible in 35% segments vs 21% without enema, p = 0.006). Of 53 patients, 30 (56%) found the enema straightforward to use, but 4 (8%) found it unpleasant.

CONCLUSION

Phosphate enema use prior to non-laxative CTC leads to greater retained fluid, reducing diagnostic confidence, and is not recommended.

Accuracy of routine nontargeted CT without colonography technique for the detection of large colorectal polyps and cancer

BACKGROUND

To assess the accuracy of routine contrast-enhanced computed tomography for the detection of large colorectal polyps and cancer.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 100 patients who underwent abdominal computed tomography and optical colonoscopy evaluation before any treatment or intervention. Invasive colorectal carcinoma and large polyps (>or=10mm) were found at colonoscopy in 29 and 16 patients, respectively. Computed tomography studies with oral and IV contrast were retrospectively reviewed as 5-mm thick sections in standard soft tissue windows by 3 readers. The readers scored each segment for polyp or cancer utilizing a 5-point scale for receiver operating characteristic analysis.

RESULTS

By-patient sensitivity/specificity for cancer detection for each reader was 69.0%/88.7%, 65.5%/84.5%, and 82.8%/77.5%, respectively. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for cancer was 72.4%, 83.6%, and 80.3%, respectively. The empiric area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the readers ranged from 0.775 to 0.857. By-patient sensitivity for large polyps was poor with a pooled sensitivity of 14.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard computed tomography not tailored to colorectal investigation was moderately effective for detecting invasive cancers, but insensitive for large polyps. Unsuspected cancer should be a part of the standard search pattern for routine computed tomography interpretation, but more advanced colonography techniques are necessary for detecting large polyps.

Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. Early detection and removal of CRC or its precursor lesions by population screening can reduce mortality. Colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) are highly accurate exams and screening options that examine the entire colon. The success of screening depends on the participation rate. We designed a randomized trial to compare the uptake, yield and costs of direct colonoscopy population screening, using either a telephone consultation or a consultation at the outpatient clinic, versus CT colonography first, with colonoscopy in CT colonography positives.

Methods and design

7,500 persons between 50 and 75 years will be randomly selected from the electronic database of the municipal administration registration and will receive an invitation to participate in either CT colonography (2,500 persons) or colonoscopy (5,000 persons) screening. Those invited for colonoscopy screening will be randomized to a prior consultation either by telephone or a visit at the outpatient clinic. All CT colonography invitees will have a prior consultation by telephone. Invitees are instructed to consult their general practitioner and not to participate in screening if they have symptoms suggestive for CRC. After providing informed consent, participants will be scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome measure of this study is the participation rate. Secondary outcomes are the diagnostic yield, the expected and perceived burden of the screening test, level of informed choice and cost-effectiveness of both screening methods.

Discussion

This study will provide further evidence to enable decision making in population screening for colorectal cancer.

Trial registration

Dutch trial register: NTR1829

Performance of CT colonography for detecting small, diminutive, and flat polyps

The primary goal of colorectal cancer screening and prevention is the detection and removal of advanced neoplasia. Computerized tomography (CT) colonography is now well established as an effective screening test. Areas of greater uncertainty include the performance characteristics of CT colonography for detecting small (6-9 mm), diminutive (< or =5 mm), and flat (nonpolypoid) lesions. However, the actual clinical relevance of small, diminutive, and flat polyps has also been the source of debate. This article addresses these controversial and often misunderstood issues.

Current techniques in the performance, interpretation, and reporting of CT colonography

The technical objective of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is to acquire high-quality computed tomography images of the cleansed, well-distended colon for polyp detection. In this article the authors provide an overview of the technical components of CTC, from preparation of the patient to acquisition of the imaging data and basic methods of interpretation. In each section, the best evidence for current practices and recommendations is reviewed. Each of the technical components must be optimized to achieve high sensitivity in polyp detection.

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.

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.

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation

The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare participant experience and preference of limited preparation computed tomography colonography (CTC) with full-preparation colonoscopy in a consecutive series of patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. CTC preparation comprised 180 ml diatrizoate meglumine, 80 ml barium and 30 mg bisacodyl. For the colonoscopy preparation 4 l of polyethylene glycol solution was used. Participants’ experience and preference were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the chi-squared test, respectively. Associations between preference and experience parameters for the 173 participants were determined by logistic regression. Diarrhoea occurred in 94% of participants during CTC preparation. This side effect was perceived as severely or extremely burdensome by 29%. Nonetheless, the total burden was significantly lower for the CTC preparation than for colonoscopy (9% rated the CTC preparation as severely or extremely burdensome compared with 59% for colonoscopy; p < 0.001). Participants experienced significantly more pain, discomfort and total burden with the colonoscopy procedure than with CTC (p < 0.001). After 5 weeks, 69% preferred CTC, 8% were indifferent and 23% preferred colonoscopy (p < 0.001). A burdensome colonoscopy preparation and pain at colonoscopy were associated with CTC preference (p < 0.04). In conclusion, participants’ experience and preference were rated in favour of CTC with limited bowel preparation compared with full-preparation colonoscopy.

Full-laxative versus minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CT colonography using 64-detector row CT: prospective blinded comparison of diagnostic performance, tagging quality, and patient acceptance

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To compare prospectively 64-detector-row computed tomographic colonography (CTC) after a full-laxative tagging-based preparation (full preparation) with a minimum-laxative tagging-based preparation (minimum preparation) with respect to diagnostic performance in the detection of polyps, tagging quality, and patient acceptance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive 101 patients at high risk for developing colorectal cancer were alternately assigned to either a full preparation group (n = 51) or a minimum preparation group (n = 50) for fecal-tagging CTC. The full preparation consisted of administration of 2-L polyethylene glycol solution with 20 mL of sodium diatrizoate for fecal tagging. The minimum preparation consisted of ingestion of a total of 45 mL of sodium diatrizoate during the 3 days before and 10 mL of sodium picosulfate solution the night before CT. Colonoscopy was used as the reference standard. We assessed the accuracy of polyp detection and the tagging quality for each preparation. All patients were given questionnaires related to their acceptance.

RESULTS

Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for polyps > or = 6 mm were as follows: full preparation group, 97%, 92%, 88%, and 98%, respectively; minimum preparation group, 88%, 68%, 56%, and 92%, respectively. Average visual subjective tagging scores for the full and minimum preparation groups were 94.6% and 76.1%, respectively (P < .0001). Minimum preparation was better tolerated than full preparation.

CONCLUSION

Although full-laxative and minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CTC yielded an equally high sensitivity in the detection of polyps > or = 6 mm, the full-laxative fecal-tagging CTC yielded a better specificity than did the minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CTC. Thus, it is desirable to offer patients an option of either full-laxative fecal-tagging CTC for highest diagnostic accuracy and ability to perform a same-day therapeutic colonoscopy without additional bowel preparation, or minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CTC for those unwilling to undergo full preparation but willing to accept moderate decrease in specificity.

CT colonography: techniques and applications

CT colonography (CTC), also termed virtual colonoscopy, is increasingly accepted at sites throughout the world as a new effective tool for the diagnosis and screening of colorectal carcinoma. This article presents information of related issues of bowel cleansing, stool and fluid tagging, bowel distention and multidetector CT scanning parameters. The author presents discussion of interpretation of CTC, appropriate applications of CTC and potential complications.

Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers?

The purpose of this study was to compare a primary uncleansed 2D and a primary electronically cleansed 3D reading strategy in CTC in limited prepped patients. Seventy-two patients received a low-fibre diet with oral iodine before CT-colonography. Six novices and two experienced observers reviewed both cleansed and uncleansed examinations in randomized order. Mean per-polyp sensitivity was compared between the methods by using generalized estimating equations. Mean per-patient sensitivity, and specificity were compared using the McNemar test. Results were stratified for experience (experienced observers versus novice observers). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices using cleansed 3D (65%; 95%CI 57–73%) compared with uncleansed 2D (51%; 95%CI 44–59%). For experienced observers there was no significant difference. Mean per-patient sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices as well: respectively 75% (95%CI 70–80%) versus 64% (95%CI 59–70%). For experienced observers there was no statistically significant difference. Specificity for both novices and experienced observers was not significantly different. For novices primary electronically cleansed 3D is better for polyp detection than primary uncleansed 2D.

Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?

We prospectively determined whether computer-aided detection (CAD) could improve the performance characteristics of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in a population of increased risk for colorectal cancer. Therefore, we included 170 consecutive patients that underwent both CTC and colonoscopy. All findings >or=6 mm were evaluated at colonoscopy by segmental unblinding. We determined per-patient sensitivity and specificity for polyps >or=6 mm and >or=10 mm without and with computer-aided detection (CAD). The McNemar test was used for comparison the results without and with CAD. Unblinded colonoscopy detected 50 patients with lesions >or=6 mm and 25 patients with lesions >or=10 mm. Sensitivity of CTC without CAD for these size categories was 80% (40/50, 95% CI: 69-81%) and 64% (16/25, 95% CI: 45-83%), respectively. CTC with CAD detected one additional patient with a lesion >or=6 mm and two with a lesion >or=10 mm, resulting in a sensitivity of 82% (41/50, 95% CI: 71-93%) (p = 0.50) and 72% (18/25, 95% CI: 54-90%) (p = 1.0), respectively. Specificity without CAD for polyps >or=6 mm and >or=10 mm was 84% (101/120, 95% CI: 78-91%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90-98%), respectively. With CAD, the specificity remained (nearly) unchanged: 83% (99/120, 95% CI: 76-89%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90-98%), respectively. Thus, although CTC with CAD detected a few more patients than CTC without CAD, it had no statistically significant positive influence on CTC performance.

Imaging and cancer: a review

Multiple biomedical imaging techniques are used in all phases of cancer management. Imaging forms an essential part of cancer clinical protocols and is able to furnish morphological, structural, metabolic and functional information. Integration with other diagnostic tools such as in vitro tissue and fluids analysis assists in clinical decision-making. Hybrid imaging techniques are able to supply complementary information for improved staging and therapy planning. Image guided and targeted minimally invasive therapy has the promise to improve outcome and reduce collateral effects. Early detection of cancer through screening based on imaging is probably the major contributor to a reduction in mortality for certain cancers. Targeted imaging of receptors, gene therapy expression and cancer stem cells are research activities that will translate into clinical use in the next decade. Technological developments will increase imaging speed to match that of physiological processes. Targeted imaging and therapeutic agents will be developed in tandem through close collaboration between academia and biotechnology, information technology and pharmaceutical industries.