Sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography for the detection of colonic neoplasia after positive faecal occult blood testing: systematic review and meta-analysis

Imaging and Metabolic Diagnostic Methods in the Stage Assessment of Rectal Cancer

Rectal cancer (RC) is a prevalent malignancy with significant morbidity and mortality rates. The accurate staging of RC is crucial for optimal treatment planning and patient outcomes. This review aims to summarize the current literature on imaging and metabolic diagnostic methods used in the stage assessment of RC. Various imaging modalities play a pivotal role in the initial evaluation and staging of RC. These include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and endorectal ultrasound (ERUS). MRI has emerged as the gold standard for local staging due to its superior soft tissue resolution and ability to assess tumor invasion depth, lymph node involvement, and the presence of extramural vascular invasion. CT imaging provides valuable information about distant metastases and helps determine the feasibility of surgical resection. ERUS aids in assessing tumor depth, perirectal lymph nodes, and sphincter involvement. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each diagnostic modality is essential for accurate staging and treatment decisions in RC. Furthermore, the integration of multiple imaging and metabolic methods, such as PET/CT or PET/MRI, can enhance diagnostic accuracy and provide valuable prognostic information. Thus, a literature review was conducted to investigate and assess the effectiveness and accuracy of diagnostic methods, both imaging and metabolic, in the stage assessment of RC.

miRNA as a Biomarker for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short, non-coding RNA segments that can be detected in a variety of clinical samples, including serum, stool, and urine. While miRNAs were initially known for their effect on post-translational gene expression, the last decade of research has shown them to be promising biomarkers for the detection of many types of cancer. This paper explores the use of miRNA detection as a tool for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We discuss the current state of miRNA detection, compare it to the existing CRC screening tools, and highlight the advantages and drawbacks of this approach from a clinical and logistical perspective. Our research finds that miRNA-based tests for CRC show great potential, but that widespread clinical adoption will be conditional on future research overcoming key hurdles.

Three-dimensional reconstruction of computed tomography colonography discloses anatomic features associated with colonoscopy failure

Objectives:

Three-dimensional virtual reality (3D VR) permits precise reconstruction of computed tomography (CT) images, and these allow precise measurements of colonic anatomical parameters. Colonoscopy proves challenging in a subset of patients, and thus CT colonoscopy (CTC) is often required to visualize the entire colon. The aim of the study was to determine whether 3D reconstructions of the colon could help identify and quantify the key anatomical features leading to colonoscopy failure.

Design:

Retrospective observational study.

Methods:

Using 3D VR technology, we reconstructed and compared the length of various colonic segments and number of bends and colonic width in 10 cases of CTC in technically failed prior colonoscopies to 10 cases of CTC performed for non-technically failure indications.

Results:

We found significant elongation of the sigmoid colon (71 ± 23 cm versus 35 ± 9; p = 0.01) and of pancolonic length (216 ± 38 cm versus 158 ± 20 cm; p = 0.001) in cases of technically failed colonoscopy. There was also a significant increase in the number of colonic angles (17.7 ± 3.2 versus 12.7 ± 2.4; p = 0.008) in failed colonoscopy cases.

Conclusion:

Increased sigmoid and pancolonic length and more colonic bends are novel factors associated with technical failure of colonoscopy.

Recipient selection, timing of referral, and listing for lung transplantation

Recipient selection for lung transplantation is a balance between providing access to transplantation to maximum patients, while utilizing this limited resource in the most optimal way. This review summarizes the current literature and recommendations about referral, listing, and evaluation of lung transplant candidates, with a focus on patients considered to have high risk characteristics.

Colorectal Cancer Screening with Computed Tomography Colonography: Single Region Experience in Kazakhstan

Background/Aims

The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

A total of 612 females and 588 males aged 45 to 75 years were enrolled in CTC screening. CTC was performed following standard bowel preparation and colonic insufflation with carbon dioxide. The main outcomes were the detection rate of CRC and advanced adenoma (AA), prevalence of colorectal lesions in relation to socio-demographic and health factors, and overall diagnostic performance of CTC.

Results

Overall, 56.5% of the 1,200 invited subjects underwent CTC screening. The sensitivity for CRC and AA was 0.89 and 0.97, respectively, while the specificity was 0.71 and 0.99, respectively. The prevalence of CRC and AA was 3.0% (18/593) and 7.1% (42/593), respectively, with the highest CRC prevalence in the 66-75 age group (≥12 times; odds ratio [OR], 12.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.45-32.92). CRC and AA prevalence were inversely correlated with Asian descent, physical activity, and negative fecal immunochemical test results (OR=0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.83; OR=0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.68; OR=0.5; 95% CI, 0.07-3.85, respectively).

Conclusions

Our study revealed high accuracy of CTC in diagnosing colonic neoplasms, good compliance with CTC screening, and high detection rate of CRC.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020

1: ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 - 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography colonography in patients at high risk for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

AIM

The aim was to explore the diagnostic value of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) compared with conventional colonoscopy in individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the Web of Science were searched by two independent reviewers for potentially eligible studies published up to 31 October 2018 that were based on a per-patient analysis. stata, meta-disc and revman were used to perform this meta-analysis. A random-effect model was used, and a subgroup analysis was conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 14 full-text articles, involving 3578 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve of CTC for detecting polyps ≥ 6 mm were 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.90), 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.93), 9.08 (95% CI 6.28-13.13), 0.14 (95% CI 0.11-0.18) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96), respectively. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio of CTC were 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.94), 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), 40.36 (95% CI 19.16-85.03), 0.90 (95% CI 0.06-0.14) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, CTC had high diagnostic accuracy for detecting polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm in patients at high risk of developing colorectal cancer and it had a higher sensitivity and specificity for detecting polyps ≥ 10 mm than polyps ≥ 6 mm. However, the results should be used cautiously due to the significant heterogeneity.

Moreno C, Kim DH, Bartel TB, Cash BD, Chang KJ, Feig BW, Fowler KJ, Garcia EM, Kambadakone AR, Lambert DL, Levy AD, Marin D, Peterson CM, Scheirey CD, Smith MP, Weinstein S, Carucci LR. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Colorectal Cancer Screening

This review summarizes the relevant literature regarding colorectal screening with imaging. For individuals at average or moderate risk for colorectal cancer, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer screening. After positive results on a fecal occult blood test or immunohistochemical test, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer detection. For individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer (eg, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn colitis), optical colonoscopy is preferred because of its ability to obtain biopsies to detect dysplasia. After incomplete colonoscopy, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer screening for individuals at average, moderate, or high risk. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Double-Balloon Endoscopy after Incomplete Colonoscopy and Its Comparison with Computed Tomography Colonography

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Because of the national screening program for colorectal carcinoma in The Netherlands, the number of colonoscopies has increased. In case of incomplete colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography (CTC) and double-balloon colonoscopy (DBc) are alternative options. This study evaluated cecal intubation rate and pathology detection rate in the previously unexplored part of the colon, complication rate of DBc, and CTC results after incomplete colonoscopy.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study in a tertiary referral hospital regarding DBc and CTC reports from cases with incomplete colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Sixty-three DBcs were performed after incomplete colonoscopy. Cecal intubation rate was 95%. Detection rate was 58% (5% carcinoma and 3% high-grade dysplastic adenoma). CTC preceded 54% of DBcs and 62% of CTC findings were confirmed. In 16%, a biopsy was taken, and in 60%, an intervention (mostly polypectomy) was performed. One major complication (1.5%) occurred, i.e., arterial bleeding due to polypectomy necessitating right hemicolectomy. CTC (n=213) showed a possible lesion in 35%, and could be confirmed by follow-up endoscopy or surgery in 65%.

CONCLUSIONS

DBc is effective and safe for completion of colon inspection in incomplete colonoscopy. In patients with a high likelihood of pathology, DBc is preferred over CTC.

Stool Based Testing for Colorectal Cancer: an Overview of Available Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this review is to summarize stool-based testing for colorectal cancer (CRC). The key questions answered in this review were the advantages and limitations of each available stool-based test for CRC and to examine their comparative efficacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) is no longer a relevant test for CRC screening. fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) tests, especially quantitative assays, are clearly a reliable stool-based test. Multitarget DNA (mtsDNA) stool testing may represent a viable option as well, although cost and test characteristics are yet fully defined. FIT and mtsDNA represent the options for stool-based CRC screening. In larger screening centers, quantitative FIT assays represent an attractive option for stool-based testing. Qualitative FIT has applicability in smaller centers. Although a large validation trial showed promising results for mtsDNA, further head-to-head trials with FIT will help define the ultimate role of mtsDNA. Ultimately, however, the best test for CRC screening is the one performed stool-based CRC screening as an initial or alternative option can increase participation in CRC screening.

The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Program: current perspectives on strategies for improvement

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. The English National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) was introduced in 2006 to improve CRC mortality by earlier detection of CRC. It is now offered to patients aged 60-74 years and involves a home-based guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBt) biennially, and if positive, patients are offered a colonoscopy. This has been associated with a 15% reduction in mortality. In 2013, an additional arm to BCSP was introduced, Bowelscope. This offers patients aged 55 years a one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy, and if several adenomas are found, the patients are offered a completion colonoscopy. BCSP has been associated with a significant stage shift in CRC diagnosis; however, the uptake of bowel cancer screening remains lower than that for other screening programs. Further work is required to understand the reasons for nonparticipation of patients to ensure optimal uptake. A change of gFOBt kit to the fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) in the English BCSP may further increase patient participation. This, in addition to increased yield of neoplasia and cancers with the FIT kit, is likely to further improve CRC outcomes in the screened population.

CT colonography: role in FOBT-based screening programs for colorectal cancer

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive imaging examination for the colon, and is safe, well tolerated and accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma. While the role of CTC as a primary test for population screening of CRC is under investigation, the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) has been recommended for population screening of CRC in Europe. Subjects with positive FOBT are invited to undergo total colonoscopy, which has some critical issues, such as suboptimal compliance, contraindications and the possibility of an incomplete exploration of the colon. Based on available data, the integration of CTC in FOBT-based population screening programs for CRC may fall into three scenarios. First, CTC is recommended in FOBT-positive subjects when colonoscopy is refused, incomplete or contraindicated. For these indications CTC should replace double-contrast barium enema. Second, conversely, CTC is not currently recommended as a second-level examination prior to colonoscopy in all FOBT-positive subjects, as this strategy is most probably not cost-effective. Finally, CTC may be considered instead of colonoscopy for surveillance after adenoma removal, but specific studies are needed.

Recommendations on Fecal Immunochemical Testing to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Consensus Statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

The use of the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is supported by randomized trials demonstrating effectiveness in cancer prevention and widely recommended by guidelines for this purpose. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT), as a direct measure of human hemoglobin in stool has a number of advantages relative to conventional FOBT and is increasingly used relative to that test. This review summarizes current evidence for FIT in colorectal neoplasia detection and the comparative effectiveness of FIT relative to other commonly used CRC screening modalities. Based on evidence, guidance statements on FIT application were developed and quality metrics for program implementation proposed.

Recommendations on Fecal Immunochemical Testing to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Consensus Statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

The use of the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is supported by randomized trials demonstrating effectiveness in cancer prevention and widely recommended by guidelines for this purpose. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT), as a direct measure of human hemoglobin in stool has a number of advantages relative to conventional FOBT and is increasingly used relative to that test. This review summarizes current evidence for FIT in colorectal neoplasia detection and the comparative effectiveness of FIT relative to other commonly used CRC screening modalities. Based on evidence, guidance statements on FIT application were developed and quality metrics for program implementation proposed.

Appearances of screen-detected versus symptomatic colorectal cancers at CT colonography

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the morphology, radiological stage, conspicuity, and computer-assisted detection (CAD) characteristics of colorectal cancers (CRC) detected by computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in screening and symptomatic populations.

METHODS

Two radiologists independently analyzed CTC images from 133 patients diagnosed with CRC in (a) two randomized trials of symptomatic patients (35 patients with 36 tumours) and (b) a screening program using fecal occult blood testing (FOBt; 98 patients with 100 tumours), measuring tumour length, volume, morphology, radiological stage, and subjective conspicuity. A commercial CAD package was applied to both datasets. We compared CTC characteristics between screening and symptomatic populations with multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Screen-detected CRC were significantly smaller (mean 3.0 vs 4.3 cm, p < 0.001), of lower volume (median 9.1 vs 23.2 cm3, p < 0.001) and more frequently polypoid (34/100, 34 % vs. 5/36, 13.9 %, p = 0.02) than symptomatic CRC. They were of earlier stage than symptomatic tumours (OR = 0.17, 95 %CI 0.07-0.41, p < 0.001), and were judged as significantly less conspicuous (mean conspicuity 54.1/100 vs. 72.8/100, p < 0.001). CAD detection was significantly lower for screen-detected (77.4 %; 95 %CI 67.9-84.7 %) than symptomatic CRC (96.9 %; 95 %CI 83.8-99.4 %, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Screen-detected CRC are significantly smaller, more frequently polypoid, subjectively less conspicuous, and less likely to be identified by CAD than those in symptomatic patients.

KEY POINTS

• Screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRC) are significantly smaller than symptomatic CRC. • Screening cases are significantly less conspicuous to radiologists than symptomatic tumours. • Screen-detected CRC have different morphology compared to symptomatic tumours (more polypoid, fewer annular). • A commercial computer-aided detection (CAD) system was significantly less likely to note screen-detected CRC.

CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials

CT colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive radiological investigation of the colon. Robust evidence indicates that CTC is safe, well tolerated and highly accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and large polyps, which are the targets of screening. Randomized controlled trials were carried out in Europe to evaluate CTC as the primary test for population screening of CRC in comparison with faecal immunochemical test (FIT), sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were participation rate and detection rate. Participation rate for screening CTC was in the range of 25-34%, whereas the detection rate of CTC for CRC and advanced adenoma was in the range of 5.1-6.1%. Participation for CTC screening was lower than that for FIT, similar to that for sigmoidoscopy and higher than that for colonoscopy. The detection rate of CTC was higher than that of one FIT round, similar to that of sigmoidoscopy and lower than that of colonoscopy. However, owing to the higher participation rate in CTC screening with respect to colonoscopy screening, the detection rates per invitee of CTC and colonoscopy would be comparable. These results justify consideration of CTC in organized screening programmes for CRC. However, assessment of other factors such as polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral, management of extracolonic findings and, most importantly, the forthcoming results of cost-effectiveness analyses are crucial to define the role of CTC in primary screening.

CT Colonography: an update on current and future indications

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive, patient-friendly, safe and robust colonic imaging modality. The technique is standardized and consolidated evidence from the literature shows that the diagnostic performances for the detection of colorectal cancer and large polyps are similar to colonoscopy (CS) and largely superior to alternative radiological exams, like barium enema. A clear understanding of the exact role of CTC will be beneficial to maximize the benefits and minimize the potential sources of frustration or disappointment for both referring clinicians and patients. Incomplete, failed, or unfeasible CS; investigation of elderly, and frail patients and assessment of diverticular disease are major indications supported by evidence-based data and agreed by the endoscopists. The use of CTC for symptomatic patients, colorectal cancer screening and colonic surveillance is still under debate and, thus, recommended only if CS is unfeasible or refused by patients.

A blood screening test for Alzheimer's disease

INTRODUCTION

This study combined data across four independent cohorts to examine the positive and negative predictive values of an Alzheimer's disease (AD) blood test if implemented in primary care.

METHODS

Blood samples from 1329 subjects from multiple independent, multiethnic, community-based, and clinic-based cohorts were analyzed. A "locked-down" referent group of 1128 samples was generated with 201 samples randomly selected for validation purposes. Random forest analyses were used to create the AD blood screen. Positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated.

RESULTS

In detecting AD, PPV was 0.81, and NPV was 0.95 while using the full AD blood test. When detecting mild cognitive impairment, PPV and NPV were 0.74 and 0.93, respectively. Preliminary analyses were conducted to detect any "neurodegenerative disease". The full 21-protein AD blood test yielded a PPV of 0.85 and NPV of 0.94.

DISCUSSION

The present study creates the first-ever multiethnic referent sample that spans community-based and clinic-based populations for implementation of an AD blood screen.

Patient experience of CT colonography and colonoscopy after fecal occult blood test in a national screening programme

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patient experience of CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in a national screening programme.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patient experience postal questionnaires. We included screenees from a fecal occult blood test (FOBt) based screening programme, where CTC was performed when colonoscopy was incomplete or deemed unsuitable. We analyzed questionnaire responses concerning communication of test risks, test-related discomfort and post-test pain, as well as complications. CTC and colonoscopy responses were compared using multilevel logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 67,114 subjects identified, 52,805 (79 %) responded. Understanding of test risks was lower for CTC (1712/1970 = 86.9 %) than colonoscopy (48783/50975 = 95.7 %, p < 0.0001). Overall, a slightly greater proportion of screenees found CTC unexpectedly uncomfortable (506/1970 = 25.7 %) than colonoscopy (10,705/50,975 = 21.0 %, p < 0.0001). CTC was tolerated well as a completion procedure for failed colonoscopy (unexpected discomfort; CTC = 26.3 %: colonoscopy = 57.0 %, p < 0.001). Post-procedural pain was equally common (CTC: 288/1970,14.6 %, colonoscopy: 7544/50,975,14.8 %; p = 0.55). Adverse event rates were similar in both groups (CTC: 20/2947 = 1.2 %; colonoscopy: 683/64,312 = 1.1 %), but generally less serious with CTC.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though CTC was reserved for individuals either unsuitable for or unable to complete colonoscopy, we found only small differences in test-related discomfort. CTC was well tolerated as a completion procedure and was extremely safe. CTC can be delivered across a national screening programme with high patient satisfaction.

KEY POINTS

• High patient satisfaction at CTC is deliverable across a national screening programme. • Patients who cannot tolerate screening colonoscopy are likely to find CTC acceptable. • CTC is extremely safe; complications are rare and almost never serious. • Patients may require more detailed information regarding the expected discomfort of CTC.

Effect of faecal occult blood positivity on detection rates and positive predictive value of CT colonography when screening for colorectal neoplasia

AIM

To determine the detection rates and positive predictive value (PPV) of computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) according to the magnitude of faecal occult blood test (FOBt) positivity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Anonymised data from individuals undergoing CTC after a positive FOBt in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme were analysed. The detection of colorectal cancer (CRC), advanced neoplasia, and ≥ 6 mm polyps were stratified by the number of positive FOBt windows. The PPV was calculated by reference to subsequent endoscopy results. The influence of the FOBt result on detection rates was estimated with multilevel logistic regression. PPV, CRC stage, and location were compared across groups according to FOBt positivity.

RESULTS

Four thousand, six hundred and one individuals were included (mean = 66.7 years, 54.2% men). Detection rates of CRC and advanced neoplasia increased with greater numbers of positive FOBt windows (odds ratio [OR] for CRC = 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-1.52; OR for advanced neoplasia = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.12-1.23; both p < 0.0001). The PPV was significantly greater at higher FOBt levels (p = 0.020). The number of positive FOBt windows had no significant effect on stage (p = 0.30) or location (p = 0.20) of confirmed CRC.

CONCLUSIONS

The magnitude of FOBt positivity influences the PPV and detection rates when screening for colorectal neoplasia. CTC may be particularly useful for FOBt patients with few positive test windows.

CT colonography: accuracy, acceptance, safety and position in organised population screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. The introduction of CRC screening programmes using stool tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy, have been shown to reduce CRC-related mortality substantially. In several European countries, population-based CRC screening programmes are ongoing or being rolled out. Stool tests like faecal occult blood testing are non-invasive and simple to perform, but are primarily designed to detect early invasive cancer. More invasive tests like colonoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) aim at accurately detecting both CRC and cancer precursors, thus providing for cancer prevention. This review focuses on the accuracy, acceptance and safety of CTC as a CRC screening technique and on the current position of CTC in organised population screening. Based on the detection characteristics and acceptability of CTC screening, it might be a viable screening test. The potential disadvantage of radiation exposure is probably overemphasised, especially with newer technology. At this time-point, it is not entirely clear whether the detection of extracolonic findings at CTC is of net benefit and is cost effective, but with responsible handling, this may be the case. Future efforts will seek to further improve the technique, refine appropriate diagnostic algorithms and study cost-effectiveness.

Computed tomography colonography in 2014: an update on technique and indications

Twenty years after its introduction, computed tomographic colonography (CTC) has reached its maturity, and it can reasonably be considered the best radiological diagnostic test for imaging colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyps. This examination technique is less invasive than colonoscopy (CS), easy to perform, and standardized. Reduced bowel preparation and colonic distention using carbon dioxide favor patient compliance. Widespread implementation of a new image reconstruction algorithm has minimized radiation exposure, and the use of dedicated software with enhanced views has enabled easier image interpretation. Integration in the routine workflow of a computer-aided detection algorithm reduces perceptual errors, particularly for small polyps. Consolidated evidence from the literature shows that the diagnostic performances for the detection of CRC and large polyps in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals are similar to CS and are largely superior to barium enema, the latter of which should be strongly discouraged. Favorable data regarding CTC performance open the possibility for many different indications, some of which are already supported by evidence-based data: incomplete, failed, or unfeasible CS; symptomatic, elderly, and frail patients; and investigation of diverticular disease. Other indications are still being debated and, thus, are recommended only if CS is unfeasible: the use of CTC in CRC screening and in surveillance after surgery for CRC or polypectomy. In order for CTC to be used appropriately, contraindications such as acute abdominal conditions (diverticulitis or the acute phase of inflammatory bowel diseases) and surveillance in patients with a long-standing history of ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease and in those with hereditary colonic syndromes should not be overlooked. This will maximize the benefits of the technique and minimize potential sources of frustration or disappointment for both referring clinicians and patients.