CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: national survey of current practice

CT Colonography for Colorectal Cancer Prevention and Detection: Integration Into Clinical Practice, From the AJR Special Series on Screening

CT colonography (CTC) is a CT examination, performed with low dose and typically without IV contrast media, optimized to detect colorectal polyps and cancer. Despite extensive supporting data, CTC has had variable acceptance and use over the past two decades, particularly for a main indication of colorectal cancer screening. CTC is now at an inflection point after the approval in 2025 by CMS for reimbursement of CTC performed for colorectal cancer screening. Widespread use of CTC for CRC screening could help increase screening adherence rates and prevent cancer incidence. Nonetheless, radiologists must incorporate emerging knowledge regarding polyps' natural history and recognition of sessile serrated lesions, to leverage the screening efficiencies of CTC-based screening. The purposes of this article are to describe the current status of CRC in the United States and United Kingdom with consideration of historical reasons that have limited the test's use along with recent events that may portend a marked change in the test's acceptance; to highlight the challenges and potential solutions toward successful widespread CTC implementation; and to present new concepts in CTC and CRC screening relevant to radiologists.

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

Background Most radiologists reporting CT colonography (CTC) do not undergo compulsory performance accreditation, potentially lowering diagnostic sensitivity. Purpose To determine whether 1-day individualized training in CTC reporting improves diagnostic sensitivity of experienced radiologists for 6-mm or larger lesions, the durability of any improvement, and any associated factors. Materials and Methods This prospective, multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial was performed in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales between April 2017 and January 2020. CTC services were cluster randomized into intervention (1-day training plus feedback) or control (no training or feedback) arms. Radiologists in the intervention arm attended a 1-day workshop focusing on CTC reporting pitfalls with individualized feedback. Radiologists in the control group received no training. Sensitivity for 6-mm or larger lesions was tested at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months thereafter via interpretation of 10 CTC scans at each time point. The primary outcome was the mean difference in per-lesion sensitivity between arms at 1 month, analyzed using multilevel regression after adjustment for baseline sensitivity. Secondary outcomes included per-lesion sensitivity at 6- and 12-month follow-up, sensitivity for flat neoplasia, and effect of prior CTC experience. Results A total of 69 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention (31 clusters, 80 radiologists) or control (38 clusters, 59 radiologists) arm. Radiologists were experienced (median, 500-999 CTC scans interpreted) and reported CTC scans routinely (median, 151-200 scans per year). One-month sensitivity improved after intervention (66.4% [659 of 992]) compared with sensitivity in the control group (42.4% [278 of 655]; difference = 20.8%; 95% CI: 14.6, 27.0; P < .001). Improvements were maintained at 6 (66.4% [572 of 861] vs 50.5% [283 of 560]; difference = 13.0%; 95% CI: 7.4, 18.5; P < .001) and 12 (63.7% [310 of 487] vs 44.4% [187 of 421]; difference = 16.7%; 95% CI: 10.3, 23.1; P < .001) months. This beneficial effect applied to flat lesions (difference = 22.7%; 95% CI: 15.5, 29.9; P < .001) and was independent of career experience (≥1500 CTC scans: odds ratio = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.36; P = .22). Conclusion For radiologists evaluating CT colonography studies, a 1-day training intervention yielded sustained improvement in detection of clinically relevant colorectal neoplasia, independent of previous career experience. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02892721 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Pickhardt in this issue.

Colonic Cancer and Acromegaly

Acromegaly results in a significantly increased morbidity and mortality due to cardiovascular and respiratory complications, as well as malignancies arising mainly from the colon. Furthermore, an increased lifetime risk of malignant transformation of pre-malignant colonic lesions relates to a worse overall prognosis from colorectal cancer, which is currently considered a major disease-related complication. In this review we provide some insight into colonic changes in this condition, summarize current knowledge and evidence on the use of colonoscopic screening in patients with acromegaly, and suggest a recommended screening protocol.

Colon cancer screening with CT colonography: logistics, cost-effectiveness, efficiency and progress

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality can be significantly reduced by population screening. Several different screening methods are currently in use, and this review focuses specifically on the imaging technique computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The challenges and logistics of CTC screening, as well as the importance of test accuracy, uptake, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness will be discussed. With comparable advanced adenoma detection rates to colonoscopy (the most commonly used whole-colon investigation), CTC is a less-invasive alternative, requiring less laxative, and with the potential benefit that it permits assessment of extra colonic structures. Three large-scale European trials have contributed valuable evidence supporting the use of CTC in population screening, and highlight the importance of selecting appropriate clinical management pathways based on initial CTC findings. Future research into CTC-screening will likely focus on radiologist training and CTC quality assurance, with identification of evidence-based key performance indicators that are associated with clinically-relevant outcomes such as the incidence of post-test interval cancers (CRC occurring after a presumed negative CTC). In comparison to other CRC screening techniques, CTC offers a safe and accurate option that is particularly useful when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses which evaluate referral thresholds, the impact of extra-colonic findings and real-world uptake will provide useful information regarding the feasibility of future CTC population screening.

Hepatic Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer

The liver is the most common site of metastasis in patients with colorectal cancer due to its anatomical situation regarding its portal circulation. About 14 to 18% of patients with colorectal cancer present metastasis at the first medical consultation, and 10 to 25% at the time of the resection of the primary colorectal cancer. The incidence is higher (35%) when a computed tomography (CT) scan is used.

In the last decades, a significant increase in the life expectancy of patients with colorectal cancer has been achieved with different diagnostic and treatment programs. Despite these improvements, the presence of metastasis, disease recurrence, and advanced local tumors continue to remain poor prognostic factors.

Median survival without treatment is <8 months from the moment of its presentation, and a survival rate at 5 years of 11% is the best prognosis for those who present with local metastasis. Even in patients with limited metastatic disease, 5-year survival is exceptional. Patients with hepatic metastasis of colorectal cancer have a median survival of 5 to 20 months with no treatment. Approximately 20 to 30% of patients with colorectal metastasis have disease confined to the liver, and this can be managed with surgery. Modern surgical strategies at the main hepatobiliary centers have proved that hepatectomy of 70% of the liver can be performed, with a mortality rate of <5%.

It is very important to have knowledge of predisposing factors, diagnostic methods, and treatment of hepatic metastasis. However, the establishment of newer, efficient, preventive screening programs for early diagnosis and adequate treatment is vital.

How to cite this article: Valderrama-Treviño AI, Barrera-Mera B, Ceballos-Villalva JC, Montalvo-Javé EE. Hepatic Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2017;7(2):166-175.

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.

Credentialing in radiology: Current practice and future challenges

Radiology has changed significantly in recent years. The volume of work has increased dramatically as has its complexity. Future radiologists need an adequate training and expertise in conventional practice as well as new techniques. This comes at a time when other stakeholders outside of radiology are voicing their own concerns. The rightly justified increasing focus on patient safety has placed even more emphasis on the demonstration of competent practice by all health care professionals. Credentialing has been put forward as a way to ensure a doctor is competent in specific areas. Credentialing may be an alien concept to many radiology trainees but moves are afoot in the United Kingdom to bring it to the forefront of its postgraduate medical training. Credentialing began in 20^th century North America where it was linked to the process of privileging. It subsequently garnered a strong patient safety focus and has become a part of the international healthcare agenda. Not everyone agrees with credentialing, it has many criticisms including the risk of speciality “turf wars” and the stifling of medical excellence to name just a couple. Is credentialing in radiology here to stay or will it pass by quietly? This paper reviews the global credentialing movement and discusses how this may impact on future radiology training, using the United Kingdom as its case example.

Colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer had a low incidence several decades ago. However, it has become a predominant cancer and now accounts for approximately 10% of cancer-related mortality in western countries. The 'rise' of colorectal cancer in developed countries can be attributed to the increasingly ageing population, unfavourable modern dietary habits and an increase in risk factors, such as smoking, low physical exercise and obesity. New treatments for primary and metastatic colorectal cancer have emerged, providing additional options for patients; these treatments include laparoscopic surgery for primary disease, more-aggressive resection of metastatic disease (such as liver and pulmonary metastases), radiotherapy for rectal cancer, and neoadjuvant and palliative chemotherapies. However, these new treatment options have had limited impact on cure rates and long-term survival. For these reasons, and the recognition that colorectal cancer is long preceded by a polypoid precursor, screening programmes have gained momentum. This Primer provides an overview of the current state of the art of knowledge on the epidemiology and mechanisms of colorectal cancer, as well as on diagnosis and treatment.

The role of colonoscopic screening in acromegaly revisited: review of current literature and practice guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Acromegaly is a chronic, debilitating and disfiguring condition with a significantly increased morbidity and mortality due to cardiovascular, as well as respiratory complications. Patients with acromegaly are usually diagnosed at the age of 40, however, the duration of symptoms can vary from 5 to 10 years before the formal diagnosis is confirmed. Recent advances in the field of acromegaly have improved survival significantly. A strong association between acromegaly and premalignant colonic lesions and colon cancer has been highlighted. Furthermore, patients with acromegaly have a greater lifetime risk of malignant transformation and a far worse overall prognosis from colorectal cancer, which is now considered a major disease related complication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was applied for the Medline/PubMed electronic database from its inception until April 2014. We considered all human research articles published in English, not classified as case report, editorial, comment, letter, or news.

CONCLUSION

Specific recommendations for large bowel endoscopic screening in patients with acromegaly have been proposed. In this comprehensive review we discuss the current state of knowledge and evidence on colonoscopic screening in patients with acromegaly illustrated by a case of aggressive colorectal cancer presenting late in a young woman with difficult to control acromegaly.

Model-based iterative reconstruction in low-dose CT colonography-feasibility study in 65 patients for symptomatic investigation

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To compare image quality on computed tomographic colonography (CTC) acquired at standard dose (STD) and low dose (LD) using filtered-back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 65 symptomatic patients were prospectively enrolled for the study and underwent STD and LD CTC with filtered-back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and MBIR to allow direct per-patient comparison. Objective image noise, subjective image analyses, and polyp detection were assessed.

RESULTS

Objective image noise analysis demonstrates significant noise reduction using MBIR technique (P < .05) despite being acquired at lower doses. Subjective image analyses were superior for LD MBIR in all parameters except visibility of extracolonic lesions (two-dimensional) and visibility of colonic wall (three-dimensional) where there were no significant differences. There was no significant difference in polyp detection rates (P > .05). Doses: LD (dose-length product, 257.7), STD (dose-length product, 483.6).

CONCLUSIONS

LD MBIR CTC objectively shows improved image noise using parameters in our study. Subjectively, image quality is maintained. Polyp detection shows no significant difference but because of small numbers needs further validation. Average dose reduction of 47% can be achieved. This study confirms feasibility of using MBIR in this context of CTC in symptomatic population.

Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

OBJECTIVE

To examine use of CT colonography (CTC) in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) and investigate detection rates.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of routinely coded BCSP data. Guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt)-positive screenees undergoing CTC from June 2006 to July 2012 as their first-line colonic investigation were included. Abnormalities found at CTC, subsequent polyp, adenoma and cancer detection and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. Detection rates were compared with those observed in gFOBt-positive screenees investigated by colonoscopy. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with variable detection.

RESULTS

2731 screenees underwent CTC. Colorectal cancer (CRC) or polyps were suspected in 1027 individuals (37.6%; 95% CI 33.8% to 41.4%); 911 of these underwent confirmatory testing. 124 screenees had CRC (4.5%) and 533 had polyps (19.5%), 468 adenomatous (17.1%). Overall detection was 24.1% (95% CI 21.5% to 26.6%) for CRC or polyps and 21.7% (95% CI 19.2% to 24.1%) for CRC or adenoma. Advanced neoplasia was detected in 504 screenees (18.5%; 95% CI 16.1% to 20.8%). PPV for CRC or polyp was 72.1% (95% CI 66.6% to 77.6%). By comparison, 9.0% of 72 817 screenees undergoing colonoscopy had cancer and 50.6% had polyps; advanced neoplasia was detected in 32.7%. CTC detection rates and PPV were higher at centres with experienced radiologists (>1000 examinations) and at high-volume centres (>175 cases/radiologist/annum). Centres using three-dimensional interpretation detected more neoplasia.

CONCLUSIONS

In the BCSP, detection rates after positive gFOBt are lower for CTC than colonoscopy, although populations undergoing the two tests are different. Centres with more experienced radiologists have higher detection and accuracy. Rigorous quality assurance of BCSP radiology is needed.