Effect of Slice Thickness and Primary 2D Versus 3D Virtual Dissection on Colorectal Lesion Detection at CT Colonography in 452 Asymptomatic Adults

Racially Conscious Cancer Screening Guidelines: A Path Towards Culturally Competent Science

OBJECTIVE

To review the racial composition of the study populations that the current USPSTF screening guidelines for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer are based on, and the effects of their application across non-white individuals.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

USPSTF guidelines commonly become the basis for establishing standards of care, yet providers are often unaware of the racial composition of the study populations they are based on.

METHODS

We accessed the USPSTF screening guidelines for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer via their website, and reviewed all referenced publications for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), focusing on the racial composition of their study populations. We then used PubMed to identify publications addressing the generalizability of such guidelines across non-white individuals. Lastly, we reviewed all guidelines published by non-USPSTF organizations to identify the availability of race-specific recommendations.

RESULTS

Most RCTs used as basis for the current USPSTF guidelines either did not report race, or enrolled cohorts that were not representative of the U.S. population. Several studies were identified demonstrating the broad application of such guidelines across non-white individuals can lead to underdiagnosis and higher levels of advanced disease. Nearly all guideline-issuing bodies fail to provide race-specific recommendations, despite often acknowledging increased disease burden among non-whites.

CONCLUSION

Concerted efforts to overcome limitations in the generalizability of RCTs are required to provide screening guidelines that are truly applicable to non-white populations. Broader policy changes to improve the pipeline for minority populations into science and medicine are needed to address the ongoing lack of diversity in these fields.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.

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.

Colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer, which is the leading cancer in Singapore, can be prevented by increased use of screening and polypectomy. A range of screening strategies such as stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography are available, each with different strengths and limitations. Primary care physicians should discuss appropriate screening modalities with their patients, tailored to their individual needs. Physicians, patients and the government should work in partnership to improve uptake of colorectal cancer screening to reduce the morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer.

CT colonography after incomplete optical colonoscopy: bowel preparation quality at same-day vs. deferred examination

PURPOSE

To objectively compare the volume, density, and distribution of luminal fluid for same-day oral-contrast-enhanced CTC following incomplete optical colonoscopy (OC) vs. deferred CTC on a separate day utilizing a dedicated CTC bowel preparation.

METHODS

HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved retrospective study compared 103 same-day CTC studies after incomplete OC (utilizing 30 mL oral diatrizoate) against 151 CTC examinations performed on a separate day after failed OC using a dedicated CTC bowel preparation (oral magnesium citrate/dilute barium/diatrizoate the evening before). A subgroup of 15 patients who had both same-day CTC and separate-day routine CTC was also identified and underwent separate analysis. CTC exams were analyzed for opacified fluid distribution within the GI tract, as well as density and volume. Data were analyzed utilizing Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests.

RESULTS

Opacified luminal fluid extended to the rectum in 56% (58/103) of same-day CTC vs. 100% (151/151) of deferred separate-day CTC (p < 0.0001). For same-day CTC, contrast failed to reach the colon in 11% (11/103) and failed to reach the left colon in 26% (27/103). Volumetric colonic fluid segmentation for fluid analysis (successful in 80 same-day and 147 separate-day cases) showed significantly more fluid in the same-day cohort (mean, 227 vs. 166 mL; p < 0.0001); the actual difference is underestimated due to excluded cases. Mean colonic fluid attenuation was significantly lower in the same-day cohort (545 vs. 735 HU; p < 0.0001). Similar findings were identified in the smaller cohort with direct intra-patient CTC comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicated CTC bowel preparation on a separate day following incomplete OC results in a much higher quality examination compared with same-day CTC.

European Code against Cancer, 4th Edition: Cancer screening

In order to update the previous version of the European Code against Cancer and formulate evidence-based recommendations, a systematic search of the literature was performed according to the methodology agreed by the Code Working Groups. Based on the review, the 4th edition of the European Code against Cancer recommends: "Take part in organized cancer screening programmes for: Bowel cancer (men and women); Breast cancer (women); Cervical cancer (women)." Organized screening programs are preferable because they provide better conditions to ensure that the Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Screening are followed in order to achieve the greatest benefit with the least harm. Screening is recommended only for those cancers where a demonstrated life-saving effect substantially outweighs the potential harm of examining very large numbers of people who may otherwise never have, or suffer from, these cancers, and when an adequate quality of the screening is achieved. EU citizens are recommended to participate in cancer screening each time an invitation from the national or regional screening program is received and after having read the information materials provided and carefully considered the potential benefits and harms of screening. Screening programs in the European Union vary with respect to the age groups invited and to the interval between invitations, depending on each country's cancer burden, local resources, and the type of screening test used For colorectal cancer, most programs in the EU invite men and women starting at the age of 50-60 years, and from then on every 2 years if the screening test is the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test, or every 10 years or more if the screening test is flexible sigmoidoscopy or total colonoscopy. Most programs continue sending invitations to screening up to the age of 70-75 years. For breast cancer, most programs in the EU invite women starting at the age of 50 years, and not before the age of 40 years, and from then on every 2 years until the age of 70-75 years. For cervical cancer, if cytology (Pap) testing is used for screening, most programs in the EU invite women starting at the age of 25-30 years and from then on every 3 or 5 years. If human papillomavirus testing is used for screening, most women are invited starting at the age of 35 years (usually not before age 30 years) and from then on every 5 years or more. Irrespective of the test used, women continue participating in screening until the age of 60 or 65 years, and continue beyond this age unless the most recent test results are normal.

Three-dimensional imaging and analysis of human cartilage degeneration using Optical Coherence Tomography

Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) is an evolving imaging technology allowing non-destructive imaging of cartilage tissue at near-histological resolution. This study investigated the diagnostic value of real time 3-D OCT in comparison to conventional 2-D OCT in the comprehensive grading of human cartilage degeneration. Fifty-three human osteochondral samples were obtained from eight total knee arthroplasties. OCT imaging was performed by either obtaining a single two-dimensional cross-sectional image (2-D OCT) or by collecting 100 consecutive parallel 2-D OCT images to generate a volumetric data set of 8 × 8 mm (3-D OCT). OCT images were assessed qualitatively according to a modified version of the DJD classification and quantitatively by algorithm-based evaluation of surface irregularity, tissue homogeneity, and signal attenuation. Samples were graded according to the Outerbridge classification and statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Kruskal Wallis and Tukey's or Dunn's post-hoc tests. Overall, the generation of 3-D volumetric datasets and their multiple reconstructions such as rendering, surface topography, parametric, and cross-sectional views proved to be of potential diagnostic value. With increasing distance to the mid-sagittal plane and increasing degeneration, score deviations increased, too. In conclusion, 3-D imaging of cartilage with image analysis algorithms adds considerable potential diagnostic value to conventional OCT diagnostics.

Computed tomography colonography: ready for prime time for colon cancer screening?

In 2008, results from the landmark American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) trial provided evidence supporting the use computed tomography colonography (CTC) as a comparable alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Subsequently, however, the United States Preventive Task Force decided against a recommendation in support of CTC for CRC screening. Following soon after, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made noncoverage decision for the use of CTC in CRC screening. Since that decision, there have been a number of publications on CTC and CRC screening with a strong push from the radiology community to reassess CTC as a viable option. The purpose of this review was to address focused questions concerning the use of CTC in CRC screening, through an analysis of the available scientific evidence in an effort to provide recommendations for clinicians, patients, and payors who may evaluate the role of CTC for CRC screening.

Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing

Objectives

Compare public perceptions and intentions to undergo colorectal cancer screening tests following detailed information regarding CT colonography (CTC; after non-laxative preparation or full-laxative preparation), optical colonoscopy (OC) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

Methods

A total of 3,100 invitees approaching screening age (45-54 years) were randomly allocated to receive detailed information on a single test and asked to return a questionnaire. Outcomes included perceptions of preparation and test tolerability, health benefits, sensitivity and specificity, and intention to undergo the test.

Results

Six hundred three invitees responded with valid questionnaire data. Non-laxative preparation was rated more positively than enema or full-laxative preparations [effect size (r) = 0.13 to 0.54; p < 0.0005 to 0.036]; both forms of CTC and FS were rated more positively than OC in terms of test experience (r = 0.26 to 0.28; all p-values < 0.0005). Perceptions of health benefits, sensitivity and specificity (p = 0.250 to 0.901), and intention to undergo the test (p = 0.213) did not differ between tests (n = 144-155 for each test).

Conclusions

Despite non-laxative CTC being rated more favourably, this study did not find evidence that offering it would lead to substantially higher uptake than full-laxative CTC or other methods. However, this study was limited by a lower than anticipated response rate.

Key Points

• Improving uptake of colorectal cancer screening tests could improve health benefits

• Potential invitees rate CTC and flexible sigmoidoscopy more positively than colonoscopy

• Non-laxative bowel preparation is rated better than enema or full-laxative preparations

• These positive perceptions alone may not be sufficient to improve uptake

• Health benefits and accuracy are rated similarly for preventative screening tests

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3187-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of the accuracy of CT colonography and colonoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer

AIM

The available evidence was reviewed to compare the effectiveness of CT colonography with that of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHOD

An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, from inception to July 2009. Studies were included if investigations used CT colonography for CRC screening in asymptomatic populations. Studies were excluded if investigations were conducted for the diagnosis of CRC or in elderly, high-risk or symptomatic populations.

RESULTS

Of the 213 references identified, nine studies were included. The specificity of CT colonography in screening for CRC was high, although it decreased with decreasing diameter of polyp to be detected. The sensitivity of CT colonography for the detection of polyps < 6 mm in diameter was low and heterogeneous, although it was higher for polyps > 10 mm. The main factors contributing to a greater sensitivity of CT colonography were the inclusion of only populations with an average CRC risk and colonic insufflation with CO2 . The incidence of adverse effects was very low for both tests.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography has high specificity but heterogeneous sensitivity, although in most cases it is not as sensitive or specific as conventional colonoscopy. CT colonography could therefore be useful as a screening test for populations with an average risk of CRC.

Noncathartic CT colonography: Image quality assessment and performance and in a screening cohort

OBJECTIVE

Cathartic bowel preparation is a major barrier for colorectal cancer screening. We examined noncathartic CT colonography (CTC) quality and performance using four similar bowel-tagging regimens in an asymptomatic screening cohort.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This prospective study included 564 asymptomatic subjects who underwent noncathartic CTC without dietary modification but with 21 g of barium with or without iodinated oral contrast material (four regimens). The quality of tagging with oral agents was evaluated. A gastrointestinal radiologist evaluated examinations using primary 2D search supplemented by electronic cleansing (EC) and 3D problem solving. Results were compared with complete colonoscopy findings after bowel purgation and with retrospective unblinded evaluation in 556 of the 564 (99%) subjects.

RESULTS

Of the 556 subjects, 7% (37/556) and 3% (16/556) of patients had 52 and 20 adenomatous polyps ≥ 6 and ≥ 10 mm, respectively. The addition of iodine significantly improved the percentage of labeled stool (p ≤ 0.0002) and specificity (80% vs 89-93%, respectively; p = 0.046). The overall sensitivity of noncathartic CTC for adenomatous polyps ≥ 6 mm was 76% (28/37; 95% CI, 59-88%), which is similar to the sensitivity of the iodinated regimens with most patients (sensitivity: 231 patients, 74% [14/19; 95% CI, 49-91%]; 229 patients, 80% [12/15; 95% CI, 52-96%]). The negative predictive value was 98% (481/490), and the lone cancer was detected (0.2%, 1/556). EC was thought to improve conspicuity of 10 of 21 visible polyps ≥ 10 mm.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective study of asymptomatic subjects, the per-patient sensitivity of noncathartic CTC for detecting adenomas ≥ 6 mm was approximately 76%. Inclusion of oral iodine contrast material improves examination specificity and the percentage of labeled stool. EC may improve polyp conspicuity.

Electronic cleansing for 24-h limited bowel preparation CT colonography using principal curvature flow

CT colonography (CTC) is one of the recommended methods for colorectal cancer screening. The subject's preparation is one of the most burdensome aspects of CTC with a cathartic bowel preparation. Tagging of the bowel content with an oral contrast medium facilitates CTC with limited bowel preparation. Unfortunately, such preparations adversely affect the 3-D image quality. Thus far, data acquired after very limited bowel preparation were evaluated with a 2-D reading strategy only. Existing cleansing algorithms do not work sufficiently well to allow a primary 3-D reading strategy. We developed an electronic cleansing algorithm, aimed to realize optimal 3-D image quality for low-dose CTC with 24-h limited bowel preparation. The method employs a principal curvature flow algorithm to remove heterogeneities within poorly tagged fecal residue. In addition, a pattern recognition-based approach is used to prevent polyp-like protrusions on the colon surface from being removed by the method. Two experts independently evaluated 40 CTC cases by means of a primary 2-D approach without involvement of electronic cleansing as well as by a primary 3-D method after electronic cleansing. The data contained four variations of 24-h limited bowel preparation and was based on a low radiation dose scanning protocol. The sensitivity for lesions ≥ 6 mm was significantly higher for the primary 3-D reading strategy (84%) than for the primary 2-D reading strategy (68%) (p = 0.031). The reading time was increased from 5:39 min (2-D) to 7:09 min (3-D) (p = 0.005); the readers' confidence was reduced from 2.3 (2-D) to 2.1 (3-D) ( p = 0.013) on a three-point Likert scale. Polyp conspicuity for cleansed submerged lesions was similar to not submerged lesions (p = 0.06). To our knowledge, this study is the first to describe and clinically validate an electronic cleansing algorithm that facilitates low-dose CTC with 24-h limited bowel preparation.

[Korean guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and polyp detection]

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer in males and the fourth most common in females in Korea. Since the most of colorectal cancer occur through the prolonged transformation of adenomas into carcinomas, early detection and removal of colorectal adenomas are one of the most effective methods to prevent colorectal cancer. Considering the increasing incidence of colorectal cancer and polyps in Korea, it is very important to establish Korean guideline for colorectal cancer screening and polyp detection. Korean Multi-Society Take Force developed the guidelines with evidence-based methods. Parts of the statements drawn by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Herein we discussed the epidemiology of colorectal cancers and adenomas in Korea, optimal screening methods for colorectal cancer, and detection for adenomas including fecal occult blood tests, radiologic tests, and endoscopic examinations.

Korean guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and polyp detection

Now colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer in males and the fourth most common cancer in females in Korea. Since most of colorectal cancers occur after the prolonged transformation of adenomas into carcinomas, early detection and removal of colorectal adenomas are one of the most effective methods to prevent colorectal cancer. Considering the increasing incidence of colorectal cancer and polyps in Korea, it is very important to establish Korean guideline for colorectal cancer screening and polyp detection. The guideline was developed by the Korean Multi-Society Take Force and we tried to establish the guideline by evidence-based methods. Parts of the statements were draw by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Herein we discussed epidemiology of colorectal cancers and adenomas in Korea and optimal methods for screening of colorectal cancer and detection of adenomas including fecal occult blood tests, radiologic tests, and endoscopic examinations.

Colon distension and scan protocol for CT-colonography: an overview

This article reviews two important aspects of CT-colonography, namely colonic distension and scan parameters. Adequate distension should be obtained to visualize the complete colonic lumen and optimal scan parameters should be used to prevent unnecessary radiation burden. For optimal distension, automatic carbon dioxide insufflation should be performed, preferably via a thin, flexible catheter. Hyoscine butylbromide is - when available - the preferred spasmolytic agent because of the positive effect on insufflation and pain/burden and its low costs. Scans in two positions are required for adequate distension and high polyp sensitivity and decubitus position may be used as an alternative for patients unable to lie in prone position. The great intrinsic contrast between air or tagging and polyps allows the use of low radiation dose. Low-dose protocol without intravenous contrast should be used when extracolonic findings are deemed unimportant. In patients suspected for colorectal cancer, normal abdominal CT scan protocols and intravenous contrast should be used in supine position for the evaluation of extracolonic findings. Dose reduction can be obtained by lowering the tube current and/or voltage. Tube current modulation reduces the radiation dose (except in obese patients), and should be used when available. Iterative reconstructions is a promising dose reducing tool and dual-energy CT is currently evaluated for its applications in CT-colonography. This review also provides our institution's insufflation procedure and scan parameters.

[CT colonography: what radiologists need to know]

In 2008, CT colonography was approved by the American Cancer Society as a technique for screening for colorectal cancer. This approval should be considered an important step in the recognition of the technique, which although still relatively new is already changing some diagnostic algorithms. This update about CT colonography reports the quality parameters necessary for a CT colonographic study to be diagnostic and reviews the technical innovations and colonic preparation for the study. We provide a brief review of the signs and close with a discussion of the current indications for and controversies about the technique.

ACRIN CT colonography trial: does reader's preference for primary two-dimensional versus primary three-dimensional interpretation affect performance?

PURPOSE

To determine whether the reader's preference for a primary two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) computed tomographic (CT) colonographic interpretation method affects performance when using each technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, images from 2531 CT colonographic examinations were interpreted by 15 trained radiologists by using colonoscopy as a reference standard. Through a survey at study start, study end, and 6-month intervals, readers were asked whether their interpretive preference in clinical practice was to perform a primary 2D, primary 3D, or both 2D and 3D interpretation. Readers were randomly assigned a primary interpretation method (2D or 3D) for each CT colonographic examination. Sensitivity and specificity of each method (primary 2D or 3D), for detecting polyps of 10 mm or larger and 6 mm or larger, based on interpretive preference were estimated by using resampling methods.

RESULTS

Little change was observed in readers' preferences when comparing them at study start and study end, respectively, as follows: primary 2D (eight and seven readers), primary 3D (one and two readers), and both 2D and 3D (six and six readers). Sensitivity and specificity, respectively, for identifying examinations with polyps of 10 mm or larger for readers with a primary 2D preference (n = 1128 examinations) were 0.84 and 0.86, which was not significantly different from 0.84 and 0.83 for readers who preferred 2D and 3D (n = 1025 examinations) or from 0.76 and 0.82 for readers with a primary 3D preference (n = 378 examinations). When performance by using the assigned 2D or 3D method was evaluated on the basis of 2D or 3D preference, there was no difference among those readers by using their preferred versus not preferred method of interpretation. Similarly, no significant difference among readers or preferences was seen when performance was evaluated for detection of polyps of 6 mm or larger.

CONCLUSION

The reader's preference for interpretive method had no effect on CT colonographic performance.

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in an FOBT positive screening population

Purpose

Aim was to evaluate the accuracy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) for detection of colorectal neoplasia in a Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) positive screening population.

Methods

In three different institutions, consecutive FOBT positives underwent CTC after laxative free iodine tagging bowel preparation followed by colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. Each CTC was read by two experienced observers. For CTC and for colonoscopy the per-polyp sensitivity and per-patient sensitivity and specificity were calculated for detection of carcinomas, advanced adenomas, and adenomas.

Results

In total 22 of 302 included FOBT positive participants had a carcinoma (7%) and 137 had an adenoma or carcinoma ≥10 mm (45%). CTC sensitivity for carcinoma was 95% with one rectal carcinoma as false negative finding. CTC sensitivity for advanced adenomas was 92% (95% CI: 88–96) vs. 96% (95% CI: 93–99) for colonoscopy (P = 0.26). For adenomas and carcinomas ≥10 mm the CTC per-polyp sensitivity was 93% (95% CI: 89–97) vs. 97% (95% CI: 94–99) for colonoscopy (P = 0.17). The per-patient sensitivity for the detection of adenomas and carcinomas ≥10 mm was 95% (95% CI: 91–99) for CTC vs. 99% (95% CI: 98–100) for colonoscopy (P = 0.07), while the per-patient specificity was 90% (95% CI: 86–95) and 96% (95% CI: 94–99), respectively (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

CTC with limited bowel preparation performed in an FOBT positive screening population has high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of adenomas and carcinomas and a sensitivity similar to that of colonoscopy for relevant lesions.

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.

Advanced systems to assess colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer is the second major cause of cancer-related death in the United States. The long time involved in progression of mucosal dysplasia from a small polyp to an invasive cancer and the ability to image the colon mucosa are features that make early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopy possible. Although colonoscopy has contributed to a marked decline in the number of colorectal cancer-related deaths, the protective effect of colonoscopy, when used in routine clinical practice, has not lived up to the expectations raised by carefully controlled prospective research studies. Therefore new systems that assess quality of colonoscopy are needed.

Impact of lifestyle factors on colorectal polyp detection in the screening setting

BACKGROUND

Awareness of risk factors for colorectal neoplasia could address risk reduction strategies in asymptomatic subjects.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of a prospective, cross-sectional study of 1321 asymptomatic adults. All the subjects underwent same-day CT colonography and colonoscopy to determine the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia. The variables examined included body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, age, and gender. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed for detection of colorectal neoplasia and hyperplastic polyps. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Colorectal adenomas and hyperplastic polyps were detected in 378 (28.6%) and 157 (11.9%) participants, respectively. In both univariate and multivariate analysis, increasing age, male gender, and body mass index > or =25 were significantly associated with the detection of colorectal adenomas, with an odds ratio of 1.22 (95% CI,1.09-1.36), 1.28 (95% CI, 1.06-1.45), and 1.34 (95% CI, 1.02-1.77), respectively. A history of smoking was the only identifiable risk factor for hyperplastic polyps (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.41-2.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Body mass index > or =25, increasing age, and male gender were all associated with an increased likelihood of colorectal adenomas at screening, whereas smoking was strongly associated with hyperplastic polyps.

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.

Detection of quality visualization of appendiceal orifices using local edge cross-section profile features and near pause detection

Colonoscopy is an endoscopic technique that allows a physician to inspect the inside of the human colon. The appearance of the appendiceal orifice during colonoscopy indicates a complete traversal of the colon, which is an important quality indicator of the colon examination. In this paper, we present two new algorithms. The first algorithm determines whether an image shows the clearly seen appendiceal orifice. This algorithm uses our new local features based on geometric shape, illumination difference, and intensity changes along the norm direction (cross section) of an edge. The second algorithm determines whether the video is an appendix video (the video showing at least 3 s of the appendiceal orifice inspection). Such a video indicates good visualization of the appendiceal orifice. This algorithm utilizes frame intensity histograms to detect a near camera pause during the apendiceal orifice inspection. We tested our algorithms on 23 videos captured from two types of endoscopy procedures. The average sensitivity and specificity for the detection of appendiceal orifice images with the often seen crescent appendiceal orifice shape are 96.86% and 90.47%, respectively. The average accuracy for the detection of appendix videos is 91.30%.

ACR Colon Cancer Committee white paper: status of CT colonography 2009

PURPOSE

To review the current status and rationale of the updated ACR practice guidelines for CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

Clinical validation trials in both the United States and Europe are reviewed. Key technical aspects of the CTC examination are emphasized, including low-dose protocols, proper insufflation, and bowel preparation. Important issues of implementation are discussed, including training and certification, definition of the target lesion, reporting of colonic and extracolonic findings, quality metrics, reimbursement, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Successful validation trials in screening cohorts both in the United States with ACRIN and in Germany demonstrated sensitivity > or = 90% for patients with polyps >10 mm. Proper technique is critical, including low-dose techniques in screening cohorts, with an upper limit of the CT dose index by volume of 12.5 mGy per examination. Training new readers includes the requirement of interactive workstation training with 2-D and 3-D image display techniques. The target lesion is defined as a polyp > or = 6 mm, consistent with the American Cancer Society joint guidelines. Five quality metrics have been defined for CTC, with pilot data entered. Although the CMS national noncoverage decision in May 2009 was a disappointment, multiple third-party payers are reimbursing for screening CTC. Cost-effective modeling has shown CTC to be a dominant strategy, including in a Medicare cohort.

CONCLUSION

Supported by third-party payer reimbursement for screening, CTC will continue to further transition into community practice and can provide an important adjunctive examination for colorectal screening.

Polyp detection at 3-dimensional endoluminal computed tomography colonography: sensitivity of one-way fly-through at 120 degrees field-of-view angle

PURPOSE

To investigate whether increasing the visual field-of-view (FOV) angle at 3-dimensional (3D) endoluminal computed tomography colonography (CTC) from 90 degrees to 120 degrees allows for single pass fly-through examination of the supine and prone views without sacrificing polyp detection.

METHODS

Primary 3D endoluminal CTC evaluation using a 120 degree FOV was performed by 2 experienced radiologists on 73 patients harboring 104 colonoscopy-proven polyps measuring 6 mm or larger. Unidirectional fly-through evaluation consisted of rectal-to-cecal (retrograde) navigation on the supine display and cecal-to-rectal (antegrade) navigation on the prone display. Electronic fluid subtraction was not used.

RESULTS

All 104 (100%) polyps were detectable with the single-pass 3D evaluation on either the retrograde supine or antegrade prone fly-through, with 86 (82.7%) of 104 polyps seen on both fly-through views. Of the 18 polyps detected on only one of the two 3D endoluminal passes (10 prone, 8 supine), 13 were either submerged under fluid (n = 12) or within a collapsed segment (n = 1); therefore, these were also undetectable on the corresponding 90 degrees bidirectional fly-through. The remaining 5 (4.8%) polyps were located behind a fold, but these polyps were all detectable on the other fly-through in the reverse direction.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the visual FOV angle to 120 degrees allows for a decrease in the total number of supine and prone 3D endoluminal fly-through passes from 4 to 2 without negatively impacting overall polyp detection.

Computer-aided detection (CAD) as a second reader using perspective filet view at CT colonography: effect on performance of inexperienced readers

AIM

To evaluate whether computer-aided detection (CAD) as a second reader using perspective filet view [three-dimensional (3D) filet] improves the performance of inexperienced readers at computed tomography colonography (CTC) compared with unassisted 3D filet and unassisted two-dimensional (2D) CTC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty symptomatic patients underwent CTC and same-day colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. Two inexperienced readers read the CTC studies on 3D filet and 2D several weeks apart. Four months later, readers re-read the cases only evaluating CAD marks using 3D filet. Suspicious CAD marks not previously described on 3D filet were recorded. Jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC-1) analysis was used to compare the observers' performances in detecting lesions with 3D filet, 2D and 3D filet with CAD.

RESULTS

One hundred and three lesions > or =3mm were detected at colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. CAD alone had a sensitivity of 73% (75/103) at a mean false-positive rate per patient of 12.8 in supine and 11.4 in prone. For inexperienced readers sensitivities with 3D filet with CAD were 58% (60/103) and 48% (50/103) with an improvement of 14-16 percentage points (p<0.05) compared with 2D and of 10-11 percentage points (p<0.05) compared with 3D filet. For inexperienced readers, the false-positive rate was 25-41% and 71-200% higher with 3D filet with CAD compared with 3D filet and 2D, respectively. JAFROC-1 analysis showed no significant differences in per-lesion overall performance among reading modes (p=0.8).

CONCLUSION

CAD applied as a second reader using 3D filet increased both sensitivity and the number of false positives by inexperienced readers compared with 3D filet and 2D, thus not improving overall performance, i.e., the ability to distinguish between lesions and non-lesions.

Virtual colonoscopy in paediatric patients Usefulness of a colon dissection technique

OBJECTIVE

To determine the usefulness of perspective-filet view for polypoid lesions in paediatric patients in comparison with conventional virtual colonoscopy (VC) analysis and optical colonoscopy.

METHODS

Sixty-one patients (mean age 5 years old) with a previous episode of rectal bleeding were studied using a 16 slices CT scanner. All patients underwent a colonic preparation. Two acquisitions were done in supine and prone positions with slices of 2mm thickness; increment 1mm, 30-50mA; 90-120kV. In a workstation an experienced radiologist reviewed images twice. The first read was done using the conventional virtual colonoscopy technique with the evaluation of two-dimensional (2D), three-dimensional (3D) and endoscopical images. Later, in a second session, perspective-filet view was used. It shows a 360 degrees unrolled visualization of the inner colon. The presence, size and location of the lesions were determined. A record of the reading time was made.

RESULTS

At per patient evaluation the conventional virtual colonoscopy analysis obtained a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 98%. The perspective-filet view obtained a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 99%. In the evaluation on a per lesion basis the conventional analysis had a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 88%. Perspective-filet view, had a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 90%. The average total reading time using conventional colonoscopy technique was 18+/-3min, versus 4+/-1min using the perspective-filet view.

CONCLUSION

Virtual colon dissection with perspective-filet view is more time-efficient than conventional virtual colonoscopy evaluation with correct correlation in results.