Objective and Subjective Intrapatient Comparison of Iohexol Versus Diatrizoate for Bowel Preparation Quality at CT Colonography

Canadian Association of Radiologists Practice Guidelines for Computed Tomography Colonography

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

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.

Core-multi-shell design: unlocking multimodal capabilities in lanthanide-based nanoparticles as upconverting, T2-weighted MRI and CT probes

Multimodal bioimaging probes merging optical imaging, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and X-ray computed tomography (CT) capabilities have attracted considerable attention due to their potential biomedical applications. Lanthanide-based nanoparticles are promising candidates for multimodal imaging because of their optical, magnetic and X-ray attenuation properties. We prepared a set of hexagonal-phase (β)-NaGdF4:Yb,Er/NaGdF4/NaDyF4 core/shell/shell nanoparticles (Dy-CSS NPs) and demonstrated their optical/T2-weighted MRI/CT multimodal capabilities. A known drawback of multimodal probes that merge the upconverting Er3+/Yb3+ ion pair with magnetic Dy3+ ions for T2-weighted MRI is the loss of upconversion (UC) emission due to Dy3+ poisoning. Particular attention was paid to controlled nanoparticle architectures with tuned inner shell thicknesses separating Dy3+ and Er3+/Yb3+ to shed light on the distance-dependent loss of UC due to Yb3+ → Dy3+ energy transfer. Based on the Er3+ UC spectra and the excited state lifetime of Yb3+, a 4 nm thick NaGdF4 inner shell did not only restore but enhanced the UC emission. We further investigated the effect of the outer NaDyF4 shell thickness on the particles' magnetic and CT performance. MRI T2 relaxivity measurements in vitro at a magnetic field of 7 T performed on citrate-capped Dy-CSS NPs revealed that NPs with the thickest outer shell thickness (4 nm) exhibited the highest r2 value, with a superior T2 contrast effect compared to commercial iron oxide and other Dy-based T2 contrast agents. In addition, the citrate-capped Dy-CSS NPs were demonstrated suitable for CT in in vitro imaging phantoms at X-ray energies of 110 keV, rendering them interesting alternatives to clinically used iodine-based agents that operate at lower energies.

Comparison of MiraLAX and magnesium citrate for bowel preparation at CT colonography

PURPOSE

To compare MiraLAX, a hypo-osmotic lavage, and magnesium citrate (MgC), a hyper-osmotic agent for bowel preparation at CTC.

METHODS

398 total screening CTC studies were included in this retrospective, single institution study. 297 underwent preparation with a double-dose MgC regimen (mean age, 61 ± 5.5 years; 142 male/155 female) and 101 with 8.3 oz (equivalent to 238 g PEG) of MiraLAX (mean age, 60 ± 9.6 years; 45 male/56 female). Oral contrast for tagging purposes was utilized in both regimens. Studies were retrospectively analyzed for residual fluid volume and attenuation by automated analysis, as well for subjective oral contrast coating of the normal colonic wall and polyps. 50 patients underwent successive CTC studies utilizing each agent (mean, 6.1 ± 1.7 years apart), allowing for intra-patient comparison. Chi-squared, Fisher's exact, McNemar, and t-tests were used for data comparison.

RESULTS

Residual fluid volume (as percentage of total colonic volume) and fluid density was 7.2 ± 4.2% and 713 ± 183 HU for the MgC cohort and 8.7 ± 3.8% and 1044 HU ± 274 for the MiraLAX cohort, respectively (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Similar results were observed for the intra-patient cohort. Colonic wall coating negatively influencing interpretation was noted in 1.7% of MgC vs. 6.9% of MiraLAX examinations (p = 0.008). Polyps were detected in 12% of all MgC vs. 16% of all MiraLAX CTCs (p = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

CTC bowel preparation with the hypo-osmotic MiraLAX agent appears to provide acceptable diagnostic quality that is comparable to the hyper-osmotic MgC agent, especially when factoring in patient safety and tolerance.

Evaluating suspected small bowel obstruction with the water-soluble contrast challenge

With optimized technique, the water-soluble contrast challenge is effective at triaging patients for operative vs non-operative management of suspected small bowel obstruction. Standardized study structure and interpretation guidelines aid in clinical efficacy and ease of use. Many tips and tricks exist regarding technique and interpretation, and their understanding may assist the interpreting radiologist. In the future, a CT-based water-soluble contrast challenge, utilizing oral contrast given as part of the initial CT examination, might allow for a more streamlined algorithm and provide more rapid results.

Diagnostic Performance of Multitarget Stool DNA and CT Colonography for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening

BackgroundMultitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) screening has increased rapidly since simultaneous approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2014, whereas CT colonography screening remains underused and is not covered by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.PurposeTo report postapproval clinical experience with mt-sDNA screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and compare results with CT colonography screening at the same center.Materials and MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, asymptomatic adults underwent clinical mt-sDNA screening during a 5-year interval (2014-2019). Electronic medical records were searched to verify test results and document subsequent optical colonoscopy and histopathologic findings. A similar analysis was performed for CT colonography screening during a 15-year interval (2004-2019), with consideration of thresholds for positivity of both 6-mm and 10-mm polyp sizes. χ² or two-sample t tests were used for group comparisons.ResultsA total of 3987 asymptomatic adult patients (mean age, 64 years ± 9 [standard deviation]; 2567 women) underwent mt-sDNA screening and 9656 patients (mean age, 57 years ± 8; 5200 women) underwent CT colonography. Test-positive rates for mt-sDNA and for 6-mm- and 10-mm-threshold CT colonography were 15.2%, 16.4%, and 6.7%, respectively. Optical colonoscopy follow-up rates for positive results of mt-sDNA and 6-mm- and 10-mm-threshold CT colonography were 13.1%, 12.3%, and 5.9%, respectively. Positive predictive values (PPVs) for any neoplasm 6 mm or greater, advanced neoplasia, and CRC for mt-sDNA were 54.2%, 22.7%, and 1.9% respectively; for 6-mm-threshold CT colonography, PPVs were 76.8%, 44.3%, and 2.7%; for 10-mm-threshold CT colonography, PPVs were 84.5%, 75.2%, and 5.2%, respectively (P < .001 for mt-sDNA vs CT colonography for all except 6-mm CRC at CT colonography). For mt-sDNA versus 6-mm-threshold CT colonography, overall detection rates for advanced neoplasia were 2.7% and 5.0%, respectively (P < .001); corresponding detection rates for CRC were 0.23% and 0.31%, respectively (P = .43).ConclusionThe detection rates of advanced neoplasia at CT colonography screening were greater than those of multitarget stool DNA. Detection rates were similar for colorectal cancer.© RSNA, 2020See also the editorial by Yee in this issue.

Comparison of two Meglumine-Diatrizoate based bowel preparations for computed tomography colonography: Comparison of patient symptoms and bowel preparation quality

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the impact of two Meglumine-Diatrizoate based bowel preparation regimes for computed tomography colonography (CTC) on the patient experience and image quality.

METHODS

100 patients consumed Meglumine-Diatrizoate at 24 h and 12 h prior to the CTC examination. 50 patients followed regime 1 (50:50), 50 ml of Meglumine-Diatrizoate at both 24 and 12 h prior to the examination. 50 patients followed regime 2 (75:25), 75 ml of Meglumine-Diatrizoate at 24 h prior to the examination and 25 ml of Meglumine-Diatrizoate at 12 h prior to the examination. All patients completed a questionnaire to indicate the time of onset of adverse effects and when they were most severe. Five advanced practitioners assessed the image quality in a visual grading study. Visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis was applied with regime 1 as the reference condition and regime 2 and test condition; test alpha was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Image quality was assessed with successful bowel cleansing as the scoring criteria for the visual grading study. The bowel cleansing as provided by the two Meglumine-Diatrizoate regimes was revealed not to be statistically different, with the area under the VGC curve and 95% confidence intervals 0.487 (0.287, 0.701), p = 0.887. Patients taking the 75:25 bowel preparation experienced a shorter median time to the onset of adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

There was no observed difference in Image quality criteria score for the two Meglumine-Diatrizoate based bowel preparation with more predictable adverse effects of Meglumine-Diatrizoate with the 75:25 preparation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Providing patients with a higher contrast burden 24 h prior to CTC may have a positive impact on the patient experience without compromising image quality.

Positive Oral Contrast Material for Abdominal CT: Current Clinical Indications and Areas of Controversy

OBJECTIVE. The use of positive oral contrast material for abdominal CT is a frequent protocol issue. Confusion abounds regarding its use, and practice patterns often appear arbitrary. Turning to the existing literature for answers is unrewarding, because most studies are underpowered or not designed to address key endpoints. Even worse, many decisions are now being driven by nonradiologists for throughput gains rather than patient-specific considerations. Herein, the current indications for positive oral contrast material are discussed, including areas of controversy. CONCLUSION. As radiologists, we owe it to our patients to drive the appropriate use of positive oral contrast material. At the very least, we should not allow nonradiologists to restrict its use solely on the basis of throughput concerns; rather, we should allow considerations of image quality and diagnostic confidence to enter into the decision process. Based on differences in prior training and practice patterns, some radiologists will prefer to limit the use of positive oral contrast material more than others. However, for those who believe (as I do) that it can genuinely increase diagnostic confidence and can sometimes (rather unpredictably) make a major impact on diagnosis, it behooves us to keep fighting for its use.

CT Colonography: Improving Interpretive Skill by Avoiding Pitfalls

An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on December 20, 2019.

Positive Predictive Value for Colorectal Lesions at CT Colonography: Analysis of Factors Impacting Results in a Large Screening Cohort

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate factors affecting the positive predictive value (PPV) for detecting colorectal lesions at CT colonography (CTC), using optical colonoscopy (OC) as the reference standard for concordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Consecutive CTC studies from a single screening program interpreted as positive for at least one detected colorectal lesion 6 mm or larger and sent for subsequent OC were analyzed according to per-polyp and per-patient results. Univariable and multivariable analysis of multiple input factors was performed. RESULTS. Of 1650 studies (median patient age, 59.7 years; 877 men and 773 women) with 2688 total CTC-detected lesions 6 mm or larger, the overall PPVs were 88.8% (2386/2688) by polyp and 90.8% (1499/1650) by patient. The by-polyp PPV was significantly higher for polypoid (91.2%; 1793/1965) versus flat or nonpolypoid (79.4%; 459/578) lesions (p < 0.0001). Overall per-patient PPVs were 72.3% (1193/1650) for any neoplasia 6 mm or larger and 38.8% (641/1650) for advanced neoplasia. PPVs for advanced neoplasia increased by CTC Reporting and Data System category: 5.8% (45/781) for C2, 67.1% (511/762) for C3, and 79.4% (85/107) for C4. PPVs for cancer also increased by CTC Reporting and Data System category: 0% (0/781) for C2, 2.2% (17/762) for C3, and 52.3% (56/107) for C4. On multivariable regression analysis, polyp morphologic type (flat vs polypoid) and diagnostic confidence were the strongest predictors of CTC-OC concordance. CTC PPV results are somewhat underestimated because 28.8% (87/302) of CTC-OC-discordant results were categorized as likely OC false-negatives at consensus review. CONCLUSION. Concordance between CTC and OC is high for relevant colorectal polyps and masses. Unlike stool-based tests that provide only a binary positive or negative result, CTC can specify the nature of the positive findings, resulting in much greater specificity and risk stratification for patient management decisions.

CT colonography screening in extracolonic cancer survivors: impact on rates of colorectal and extracolonic findings by cancer type

PURPOSE

To compare the rates of colorectal and extracolonic findings at CT colonography (CTC) screening between patients with and without a personal prior history of other.

METHODS

Over a 160-month interval, 349 adults (mean age, 60.3 years; 67% female) with a positive history of extracolonic cancer [Ca(+)], excluding 271 patients with isolated non-melanoma skin cancers, underwent CTC screening. This study cohort was compared against 8859 controls (mean age, 57.0 years; 53% female) without a prior cancer history [Ca(-)]. Primary outcome measures included the rates of relevant colorectal (C-RADS C2-C4) and extracolonic (C-RADS E3-E4) findings at CTC. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test for statistical significance with post-hoc analysis by relative rate (RR).

RESULTS

Both colorectal (C2-C4) and extracolonic (E3-E4) findings were significantly increased in the Ca(+) group versus Ca(-) control group (p = 0.0283 and 0.0236, respectively). Positive colorectal findings were most notably increased among survivors of non-small cell lung cancer (RR 3.1), head/neck cancers (RR, 3.4), and bladder cancers (RR 2.2). The proportion of C2-C4 patients undergoing intervention in the Ca(+) cohort was not significantly different than the Ca(-). Potentially relevant extracolonic findings (E3) were increased in survivors of hematogenous malignancies (RR 2.0), while likely important extracolonic findings (E4) were increased in survivors of female gynecological malignancies (RR 3.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Relevant colorectal and extracolonic findings at CTC screening are increased in patients with a previous extracolonic cancer history, particularly among certain cancer subsets. These results may have important implications for choice of colorectal test in these patients.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Colorectal Findings at Repeat CT Colonography Screening after Initial CT Colonography Screening Negative for Polyps Larger than 5 mm

Purpose To determine the rate and types of polyps detected at repeat computed tomographic (CT) colonography screening after initial negative findings at CT colonography screening. Materials and Methods Among 5640 negative CT colonography screenings (no polyps ≥ 6 mm) performed before 2010 at one medical center, 1429 (25.3%; mean age, 61.4 years; 736 women, 693 men) patients have returned for repeat CT colonography screening (mean interval, 5.7 years ± 0.9; range, 4.5-10.7 years). Positive rates and histologic findings of initial and repeat screening were compared in this HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study. For all patients with positive findings at repeat CT colonography, the findings were directly compared against the initial CT colonography findings. Fisher exact, Pearson χ², and Student t tests were applied as indicated. Results Repeat CT colonography screening was positive for lesions 6 mm or larger in 173 (12.1%) adults (compared with 14.3% at initial CT colonography screening, P = .29). In the 173 patients, 29.5% (61 of 207) of nondiminutive polyps could be identified as diminutive at the initial CT colonography and 12.6% (26 of 207) were missed. Large polyps, advanced neoplasia (advanced adenomas and cancer), and invasive cancer were seen in 3.8% (55 of 1429), 2.8% (40 of 1429), and 0.14% (two of 1429), respectively, at follow-up, compared with 5.2% (P = .02), 3.2% (P = .52), and 0.45% (P = .17), respectively, at initial screening. Of 42 advanced lesions in 40 follow-up screenings, 33 (78.6%) were right sided and 22 (52.4%) were flat, compared with 45.4% (P < .001) and 11.3% (P < .001), respectively, at initial screening. Large right-sided serrated lesions were confirmed in 20 individuals (1.4%), compared with 0.5% (P < .001) confirmed at initial screening. Conclusion Positive rates for large polyps at repeat CT colonography screening (3.7%) were lower compared with those at initial screening (5.2%). However, more advanced right-sided lesions were detected at follow-up CT colonography, many of which were flat, serrated lesions. The cumulative findings support both the nonreporting of diminutive lesions and a 5-10-year screening interval. ^© RSNA, 2016 An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on August 30, 2016.