Radiologists should read CT colonography

Reassessing medicare trends in diagnostic CT colonography after achieving CPT code category I status

PURPOSE

Compare national trends in utilization and coverage of diagnostic (non-screening) computed tomography colonography (CTC) in the Medicare population before and after achieving Current Procedural Terminology(®) (CPT) Category I code status in 2010.

METHODS

Claims by provider type and location for diagnostic CTC were identified between 2005 and 2013 using Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files. Frequencies of billed and denied services were used to calculate denial rates for CTC and abdominal computed tomography (CT). PubMed search for articles with "CT colonography" in abstract or title during 1997-2013 was performed. Publications were recorded yearly and matched to CTC denial rates.

RESULTS

Annual Medicare claims for diagnostic CTC increased 212% during 2005-2009 in Category III status and increased 27.4% during 2009-2013 after implementation of Category I codes. Claims for abdominal CT rose 13.4% over the same overall period. Denial rates decreased from 70% to 32.8% between 2005 and 2009, and fluctuated between 24.7 and 30.6% thereafter. Denial rates for abdominal CT remained constant (4.1%-4.6%). From 2005 to 2013, services grew most in the private office (1678-7293) and hospital outpatient (1644-6449) settings with radiologists performing 93.3% of CTC. 1037 CTC publications were identified which increased 3567% between 1997 (3) and 2008 (107), plateaued until 2010 (114) and declined thereafter (75 in 2013).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic CTC grew dramatically from 2005 to 2009, but slowed thereafter; even after achieving CPT Category I code status in 2010. Medicare denial rates declined during early years but later stabilized which paralleled a slowing in new peer-reviewed research. CTC continues to be performed predominately by radiologists in the outpatient setting.

Serrated Polyps at CT Colonography: Prevalence and Characteristics of the Serrated Polyp Spectrum

Purpose To report the prevalence and characteristics of serrated polyps identified in a large, average-risk population undergoing screening computed tomographic (CT) colonography. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. The need for informed consent was waived. Nine thousand six hundred examinations from 8289 patients were enrolled in a single-institution CT colonography-based screening program (from 2004 to 2011) and were evaluated for the presence of nondiminutive serrated lesions and advanced adenomas. The prevalence and characteristics of these lesions were tabulated. Generalized estimating equation regressions of polyp characteristics that may contribute to visualization of serrated lesions were investigated, including polyp size, location, and morphologic appearance; histologic findings; and presence or absence of contrast material tagging. Results Nondiminutive serrated lesions (≥6 mm) were seen at CT colonography-based screening with a prevalence of 3.1% (254 of 8289 patients). Sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs) and traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs) constituted 36.8% (137 of 372) and 4.3% (16 of 372) of serrated lesions, respectively; hyperplastic polyps (HPs) accounted for 58.9% (219 of 372 lesions). SSA and TSA tended to be large (mean size, 10.6 mm and 14.1 mm, respectively), with size categories and polyp subgroups significantly associated (P < .0001). SSA tended to be proximal in location (91.2%, 125 of 137 lesions) and flat in morphologic appearance (39.4%, 54 of 137 lesions) compared with TSA and HP. The presence of high-grade dysplasia in serrated lesions was uncommon when compared with advanced adenomas (one of 372 lesions vs 22 of 395 lesions, respectively; P < .0001). Multivariate analysis showed that contrast material tagging markedly improved serrated polyp detection with an odds ratio of 40.4 (95% confidence interval: 10.1, 161.4). Conclusion Serrated lesions are seen at CT colonography-based screening with a nondiminutive prevalence of 3.1%. These lesions tend to be large, flat, and proximal in location. Adherent contrast material coating on these polyps aids in their detection, despite an often flat morphologic appearance. (©) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Automatic Electronic Cleansing in Computed Tomography Colonography Images using Domain Knowledge

Electronic cleansing is an image post processing technique in which the tagged colonic content is subtracted from colon using CTC images. There are post processing artefacts, like: 1) soft tissue degradation; 2) incomplete cleansing; 3) misclassification of polyp due to pseudo enhanced voxels; and 4) pseudo soft tissue structures. The objective of the study was to subtract the tagged colonic content without losing the soft tissue structures. This paper proposes a novel adaptive method to solve the first three problems using a multi-step algorithm. It uses a new edge model-based method which involves colon segmentation, priori information of Hounsfield units (HU) of different colonic contents at specific tube voltages, subtracting the tagging materials, restoring the soft tissue structures based on selective HU, removing boundary between air-contrast, and applying a filter to clean minute particles due to improperly tagged endoluminal fluids which appear as noise. The main finding of the study was submerged soft tissue structures were absolutely preserved and the pseudo enhanced intensities were corrected without any artifact. The method was implemented with multithreading for parallel processing in a high performance computer. The technique was applied on a fecal tagged dataset (30 patients) where the tagging agent was not completely removed from colon. The results were then qualitatively validated by radiologists for any image processing artifacts.

Extracolonic findings (ECF) on CT colonography (CTC) in patients presenting with colorectal symptoms

BACKGROUND

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is now an established method for imaging the colon and rectum in the screening and symptomatic setting. Additional benefit of CTC is the ability to assess for extracolonic findings especially in patients presenting with colorectal symptoms.

PURPOSE

To determine prevalence of extracolonic findings (ECF) in symptomatic patients undergoing CTC and determine accuracy of CTC for exclusion of significant abdominal disease and extracolonic malignancy (ECM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 1359 unenhanced prone and postcontrast supine CTC studies were performed between March 2002 and December 2007. ECF were retrospectively classified according to C-RADS criteria into E1 to E4 findings. For ECM, a gold standard of clinical and/or radiological follow-up supplemented with data from the regional cancer registry with a median follow-up of 42 months was created. Sensitivity and negative predictive values for ECM was calculated.

RESULTS

Following exclusions, 1177 CTCs were analyzed. Of 1423 extracolonic findings reported, 328/1423 (23%) E3 and 100/1423 (7%) E4 (including six eventual FP studies) findings were identified. Thirty-two ECMs were confirmed following further investigations. Seven further small ECMs were detected during the entire follow-up, of which two were potentially visible in retrospect (false-negative studies). Additional tests were generated from 55/1177 (4.7%) studies. Sensitivity and negative predictive value for ECM was 94.1% (95% CI 78.9-98.9%) and 99.8% (95% CI 99.3-99.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

One in 37 patients were found to have an ECM. Two potentially detectable cancers were missed. Only a small proportion of patients underwent additional work-up.

The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography

Objective

To update quality standards for CT colonography based on consensus among opinion leaders within the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR).

Material and methods

A multinational European panel of nine members of the ESGAR CT colonography Working Group (representing six EU countries) used a modified Delphi process to rate their level of agreement on a variety of statements pertaining to the acquisition, interpretation and implementation of CT colonography. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, each at 2 months interval.

Results

The panel elaborated 86 statements.

In the final round the panelists achieved complete consensus in 71 of 86 statements (82 %). Categories including the highest proportion of statements with excellent Cronbach's internal reliability were colon distension, scan parameters, use of intravenous contrast agents, general guidelines on patient preparation, role of CAD and lesion measurement.

Lower internal reliability was achieved for the use of a rectal tube, spasmolytics, decubitus positioning and number of CT data acquisitions, faecal tagging, 2D vs. 3D reading, and reporting.

Conclusion

The recommendations of the consensus should be useful for both the radiologist who is starting a CTC service and for those who have already implemented the technique but whose practice may need updating.

Key Points

• Computed tomographic colonography is the optimal radiological method of assessing the colon

• This article reviews ESGAR quality standards for CT colonography

• This article is aimed to provide CT-colonography guidelines for practising radiologists

• The recommendations should help radiologists who are starting/updating their CTC services

Expanding utilization and regional coverage of diagnostic CT colonography: early Medicare claims experience

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess national and regional trends in utilization and Medicare coverage of diagnostic CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

Medicare claims for diagnostic CTC were identified for the first 4 complete years for which Current Procedural Terminology® tracking codes existed (2005-2008). The frequencies of billed and denied services were extracted on a national and regional basis, along with physician provider specialty and site of service.

RESULTS

Total annual claims for diagnostic CTC for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries increased from 3,660 to 10,802 (+195%) between 2005 and 2008. Overall, 50.1% (14,051 of 28,048) of all claims were denied, with annual national denial rate decreasing from 70.0% to 43.4% (2,562 of 3,660 to 4,692 of 10,802, P < .001). Annual regional denial rates ranged from 16.5% to 98.3%. Of all 28,048 CTC claims, 25,893 (92.3%) were submitted by radiologists, 286 (1.0%) by gastroenterologists, and 369 (1.3%) by other specialists (specialties were indeterminate for 1,550). Most services were performed in office (n = 13,764 [49.1%]) and outpatient hospital (n = 12,110 [43.2%]) settings, with only a small number in the inpatient hospital (n = 1,768 [6.3%]) and other miscellaneous (n = 406 [1.4%]) settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic CTC is performed predominantly by radiologists in private office and outpatient hospital settings. Since the advent of Current Procedural Terminology tracking codes, the utilization of diagnostic CTC by Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries has tripled. Despite perceptions that new technology tracking codes are not payable, more than half of all examinations are now reimbursed by Medicare. Coverage varies regionally but overall is improving annually, setting the stage for expanded patient access.