Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps

Acceptance and Preference of Computed Tomographic Colonography and Colonoscopy: Results of a Nationwide Multicenter Comparative Questionnaire Survey in Japan

Objectives

To investigate patient acceptance and preference for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) over colonoscopy.

Methods

Participants were recruited from a nationwide multicenter trial in Japan to assess the accuracy of CTC detection. They were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy after CTC with common bowel preparation on the same day. Some were administered sedative drugs during colonoscopy, depending on the referring clinician and participant's preferences. The participants were requested to complete a questionnaire to evaluate the acceptability of bowel preparation, examinations, and preference for future examinations.

Results

Of the 1,257 enrolled participants, 1,180 (mean age: 60.6 years; women: 43.3%) completed the questionnaire. Sedative drugs were not administered in 687 participants (unsedated colonoscopy group) and were administered intravenously during colonoscopy in 493 participants (sedated colonoscopy group). Before propensity score matching, the mean participants' age, percentages of asymptomatic participants, insufflation of gas during colonoscopy, and number of participants with a history of abdominal/pelvic operation significantly differed between the groups. After propensity score matching, 912 participants from each group were included in the analysis. In the unsedated colonoscopy group, CTC was answered as significantly easier than colonoscopy (p<0.001). Conversely, CTC was significantly more difficult than colonoscopy in the sedated colonoscopy group (p<0.001). In the unsedated colonoscopy group, 48% preferred CTC and 22% preferred colonoscopy for future examinations, whereas in the sedated colonoscopy group, 26% preferred CTC and 38% preferred colonoscopy (p<0.001).

Conclusions

CTC has superior participant acceptability compared with unsedated colonoscopy. However, our study did not observe the advantages of CTC acceptance over sedative colonoscopy.

An updated review of the methods, guidelines of, and controversies on screening for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Screening for early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC), adenomatous polyps, and precancerous lesions can reduce mortality. This review aimed to illustrate methods, guidelines, and clinical utility of CRC screening programs.

METHODS

Literature search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was independently performed by two authors in September 2021. Articles discussing CRC screening methods and updated guidelines were reviewed.

RESULTS

After reviewing the full text of 55 studies, it was found that the screening tests for CRC are divided into stool-based, endoscopic, and molecular. All CRC screening guidelines recommend screening starting at age 45-50, but vary regarding screening methods, frequency, and timing of screening discontinuation. Controversies include clinical benefits of screening the elderly and discontinuation of screening. Effective screening barriers involve patient- and healthcare-related factors.

CONCLUSION

Overall, screening should start at age 45-50 for average-risk individuals. Colonoscopy and FIT tests are standard modalities recommended for regular screening. Increasing public awareness of the importance of screening and implementing mass national screening programs can detect early CRC and decrease related mortality.

Low-volume reduced bowel preparation regimen for CT colonography: a randomized noninferiority trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether the quality of a low-volume reduced bowel preparation (LV-RBP) for CT Colonography (CTC) is noninferior to full-volume reduced bowel preparation (FV-RBP) regimen.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, consecutive participants referred for CTC were randomly assigned to receive LV-RBP (52.5 g of PMF104 in 500 mL of water) or FV-RBP (105 g of PMF104 in 1000 mL of water). Images were independently reviewed by five blinded readers who rated the quality of bowel preparation from 0 (best score) to 3 (worst score). The primary outcome was the noninferiority of LV-RBP to FV-RBP in the proportion of colonic segments scored 0 for cleansing quality, with noninferiority margin of 10%. Volume of residual fluids, colonic distension, lesions and polyps detection rates and patient tolerability were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

From March 2019 to January 2020, 110 participants (mean age 65 years ± 14 [standard deviation]; 74 women) were allocated to LV-RBP (n = 55) or FV-RBP (n = 55) arms. There were 92% segment scored 0 in colon cleansing quality in LV-RBP and 94% in FV-RBP for prone scans, and 94% vs 92% for supine scans. Risk difference was - 2.1 (95% CI -5.9 to 1.7) and 1.5 (95% CI -2.4 to 5.4) for prone and supine positions, respectively. Residual fluids and colonic distension were also noninferior in LV-RBP. LV-RBP was associated with a lower number of evacuations during preparation (7 ± 5 vs 10 ± 6, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The LV-RBP for CTC demonstrated noninferior quality of colon cleansing with improved gastrointestinal tolerability compared to FV-RBP regimen.

Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in FIT-positive colorectal cancer screening subjects: a prospective randomised trial-the VICOCA study

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) are minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Our objective is to compare CCE and CTC for the identification of patients with colorectal neoplasia among participants in a CRC screening programme with positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Primary outcome was to compare the performance of CCE and CTC in detecting patients with neoplastic lesions.

METHODS

The VICOCA study is a prospective, single-centre, randomised trial conducted from March 2014 to May 2016; 662 individuals were invited and 349 were randomised to CCE or CTC before colonoscopy. Endoscopists were blinded to the results of CCE and CTC.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-nine individuals were included: 173 in the CCE group and 176 in the CTC group. Two hundred ninety individuals agreed to participate: 147 in the CCE group and 143 in the CTC group. In the intention-to-screen analysis, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for the identification of individuals with colorectal neoplasia were 98.1%, 76.6%, 93.7% and 92.0% in the CCE group and 64.9%, 95.7%, 96.8% and 57.7% in the CTC group. In terms of detecting significant neoplastic lesions, the sensitivity of CCE and CTC was 96.1% and 79.3%, respectively. Detection rate for advanced colorectal neoplasm was higher in the CCE group than in the CTC group (100% and 93.1%, respectively; RR = 1.07; p = 0.08). Both CCE and CTC identified all patients with cancer. CCE detected more patients with any lesion than CTC (98.6% and 81.0%, respectively; RR = 1.22; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Although both techniques seem to be similar in detecting patients with advanced colorectal neoplasms, CCE is more sensitive for the detection of any neoplastic lesion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02081742 . Registered: September 16, 2013.

Update on Flexible Sigmoidoscopy, Computed Tomographic Colonography, and Capsule Colonoscopy

This article reviews alternative colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests, including flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), computed tomography (CT) colonography, and colon capsule endoscopy. FS has abundant and convincing evidence supporting its use for CRC screening and is a commonly used CRC test worldwide. CT colonography has demonstrated convincing results for CRC screening, but concerns regarding cost, accuracy for flat or sessile neoplasia, reproducibility, extracolonic findings, and lack of coverage have limited its use and development. Colon capsule endoscopy has demonstrated encouraging results for polyp detection in average-risk individuals, but is not approved for CRC screening at the current time.

Computed tomographic colonography with a reduced dose of laxative using a novel barium sulfate contrast agent in Japan

PURPOSE

To test the tagging efficacy, patient acceptability, and accuracy of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with a reduced dose of laxative using a novel barium sulfate (BaSO₄) contrast agent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CTC followed by optical colonoscopy (OC) was performed on 73 patients with positive results in fecal occult blood tests. They were administrated a BaSO₄ suspension and a magnesium citrate solution for bowel preparation. Patients completed a questionnaire about the acceptability of bowel preparation. Tagging efficacy was estimated using a novel categorization system, which classified all segments into 8 categories. The accuracy of detecting protruded lesions ≥ 6 mm was calculated from the comparison of CTC and OC results, using the latter as a reference standard.

RESULTS

Tagging efficacy was good in 77.3% of colonic segments where residue was observed. The acceptability of bowel preparation for CTC was significantly higher than that for OC. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 0.778, 0.945, 0.824, and 0.929, respectively. All lesions ≥ 7 mm were successfully detected by CTC.

CONCLUSION

CTC with a reduced dose of laxative using a novel BaSO₄ contrast agent has a favorable tagging efficacy, patient acceptability, and accuracy.

Deep Learning Electronic Cleansing for Single- and Dual-Energy CT Colonography

Electronic cleansing (EC) is used for computational removal of residual feces and fluid tagged with an orally administered contrast agent on CT colonographic images to improve the visibility of polyps during virtual endoscopic "fly-through" reading. A recent trend in CT colonography is to perform a low-dose CT scanning protocol with the patient having undergone reduced- or noncathartic bowel preparation. Although several EC schemes exist, they have been developed for use with cathartic bowel preparation and high-radiation-dose CT, and thus, at a low dose with noncathartic bowel preparation, they tend to generate cleansing artifacts that distract and mislead readers. Deep learning can be used for improvement of the image quality with EC at CT colonography. Deep learning EC can produce substantially fewer cleansing artifacts at dual-energy than at single-energy CT colonography, because the dual-energy information can be used to identify relevant material in the colon more precisely than is possible with the single x-ray attenuation value. Because the number of annotated training images is limited at CT colonography, transfer learning can be used for appropriate training of deep learning algorithms. The purposes of this article are to review the causes of cleansing artifacts that distract and mislead readers in conventional EC schemes, to describe the applications of deep learning and dual-energy CT colonography to EC of the colon, and to demonstrate the improvements in image quality with EC and deep learning at single-energy and dual-energy CT colonography with noncathartic bowel preparation. ©RSNA, 2018.

CTC technique: methods to ensure an optimal exam

CT colonography (CTC) has demonstrated equivalent accuracy to optical colonoscopy in the detection of clinically relevant polyps and tumors but this is only possible when technique is optimized. The two most important features of a high-quality CTC are a well-prepared colon and a distended colon. This article will discuss the dietary, bowel preparation, and fecal/fluid tagging options to best prepare the colon. Strategies to optimally distend the colon will also be discussed. CT scan techniques including patient positioning and radiation dose optimization will be reviewed. With proper technique which includes sufficient bowel preparation, fecal/fluid tagging, bowel distension, and optimized scan technique, high-quality CTC examinations should become more feasible, easier to interpret, and more consistently reproducible leading to increased utilization and increased referrals.

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.

Assessment of 3 Bowel Preparation Protocols for Computed Tomography Pneumocolonography in Normal Dogs

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of 3 different bowel preparation protocols on interpretation of computed tomography (CT) pneumocolonography images.

STUDY DESIGN

Experimental crossover design.

ANIMALS

Intact male, hound-cross, research colony dogs (n=4).

METHODS

All dogs received the 3 different bowel preparation protocols for CT pneumocolonography in the same order, with a minimum of 2 weeks between protocols. For each segment of large bowel, the subjective adequacy of bowel cleansing was assessed, residual fecal and bowel volumes were calculated, and the density of fecal material in the bowel lumen was measured. Linear mixed effect models that included a random dog effect were used to evaluate mean differences in outcome measures across protocols.

RESULTS

No dogs experienced any clinical problems associated with the protocols or CT pneumocolonography. Bowel cleansing was considered adequate for CT pneumocolonography interpretation for all 3 protocols. There was a significant effect of protocol on residual fecal volumes and the fecal:bowel volume ratio, with the 2 protocols that included an extended fast producing the lowest total residual fecal volumes. There was a significant effect of protocol on maximum measured density of residual fecal material with the 2 protocols including iodinated contrast having the highest density.

CONCLUSIONS

All protocols were sufficient for CT pneumocolonography interpretation and contrast-tagging of residual fecal material was successful with oral iopamidol administration. An at-home bowel cleansing protocol may provide adequate bowel cleansing for CT pneumocolonography image interpretation.

Comparison of 64-Detector CT Colonography and Conventional Colonoscopy in the Detection of Colorectal Lesions

Background:

Colon cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in developed countries. The early detection of colorectal cancer using screening programs is important for managing early-stage colorectal cancers and polyps. Modalities that allow examination of the entire colon are conventional colonoscopy, double contrast barium enema examination and multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) colonography.

Objectives:

To compare CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy results and to evaluate the accuracy of CT colonography for detecting colorectal lesions.

Patients and Methods:

In a prospective study performed at Gastroenterology and Radiology Departments of Medical Faculty of Eskisehir Osmangazi University, CT colonography and colonoscopy results of 31 patients with family history of colorectal carcinoma, personal or family history of colorectal polyps, lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding, change in bowel habits, iron deficiency anemia and abdominal pain were compared. Regardless of the size, CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy findings for all the lesions were cross - tabulated and the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. To assess the agreement between CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy examinations, the Kappa coefficient of agreementt was used. Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS ver 15.0.

Results:

Regardless of the size, MDCT colonography showed 83% sensitivity and 95% specificity, with a positive predictive value of 95% and a negative predictive value of 83% for the detection of colorectal polyps and masses. MDCT colonography displayed 92% sensitivity and 95% specificity, with a positive predictive value of 92% and a negative predictive value of 95% for polyps ≥ 10 mm. For polyps between 6mm and 9 mm, MDCT colonography displayed 75% sensitivity and 100% specificity, with a positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 90%. For polyps ≤ 5 mm MDCT colonography displayed 88% sensitivity and 100% specificity with a positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 95%.

Conclusions:

CT colonography is a safe and minimally invasive technique, a valuable diagnostic tool for examining the entire colon and a good alternative compared to other colorectal cancer screening tests because of its high sensitivity values in colorectal lesions over 1 cm.

Reduced and Full-Preparation CT Colonography, Fecal Immunochemical Test, and Colonoscopy for Population Screening of Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Population screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is widely adopted, but the preferred strategy is still under debate. We aimed to compare reduced (r-CTC) and full cathartic preparation CT colonography (f-CTC), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and optical colonoscopy (OC) as primary screening tests for CRC.

METHODS

Citizens of a district of Florence, Italy, age 54 to 65 years, were allocated (8:2.5:2.5:1) with simple randomization to be invited by mail to one of four screening interventions: 1) biennial FIT for three rounds, 2) r-CTC, 3) f-CTC, 4) OC. Patients tested positive to FIT or CTC (at least one polyp ≥6mm) were referred to OC work-up. The primary outcomes were participation rate and detection rate (DR) for cancer or advanced adenoma (advanced neoplasia). All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Sixteen thousand eighty-seven randomly assigned subjects were invited to the assigned screening test. Participation rates were 50.4% (4677/9288) for first-round FIT, 28.1% (674/2395) for r-CTC, 25.2% (612/2430) for f-CTC, and 14.8% (153/1036) for OC. All differences between groups were statistically significant (P = .047 for r-CTC vs f-CTC; P < .001 for all others). DRs for advanced neoplasia were 1.7% (79/4677) for first-round FIT, 5.5% (37/674) for r-CTC, 4.9% (30/612) for f-CTC, and 7.2% (11/153) for OC. Differences in DR between CTC groups and FIT were statistically significant (P < .001), but not between r-CTC and f-CTC (P = .65).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced preparation increases participation in CTC. Lower attendance and higher DR of CTC as compared with FIT are key factors for the optimization of its role in population screening of CRC.

Patient willingness for repeat screening and preference for CT colonography and optical colonoscopy in ACRIN 6664: the National CT Colonography trial

BACKGROUND

Current American Cancer Society recommendations for colon cancer screening include optical colonoscopy every 10 years or computed tomography colonography (CTC) every 5 years. Bowel preparation (BP) is currently required for both screening modalities.

PURPOSE

To compare ACRIN 6664: the National CT Colonography Trial (NCTCT) participant experiences with CTC and optical colonoscopy (OC), procedure preference, and willingness to return for each procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants from fifteen NCTCT sites, who underwent CTC followed by OC under sedation, were invited to complete questionnaires 2 weeks postexam, asking about procedure preference, physical discomfort, and embarrassment experienced and whether that discomfort and embarrassment was better or worse than expected during BP, CTC, and OC, as well as willingness to return for repeat CTC and OC at different time intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 2,310 of 2,600 patients (89%) returned their questionnaires. Of patients reporting a preference, 1,058 (46.6%) preferred CTC, 569 (25.0%) preferred OC, and 626 (27.6%) reported no preference. Participant-reported discomfort worse than expected differed significantly between CTC (32.9%) and OC (5.0%) (P<0.001). About 79.3% were willing to be screened again with CTC in 5 years, and 96.6% with OC in 10 years. Discomfort and embarrassment worse than expected with OC were associated with increased intention to adhere with CTC in the future. Conversely, embarrassment experienced during CTC and discomfort worse than expected on CTC were associated with increased intention to adhere with OC in the future.

CONCLUSION

While a larger proportion of participants indicated that they preferred CTC to OC, willingness to undergo repeat CTC compared to OC was limited by unanticipated exam discomfort and embarrassment and CTC's shorter screening interval.

CT colonography with rectal iodine tagging: Feasibility and comparison with oral tagging in a colorectal cancer screening population

PURPOSE

To evaluate feasibility, diagnostic performance, patient acceptance, and overall examination time of CT colonography (CTC) performed through rectal administration of iodinated contrast material.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six-hundred asymptomatic subjects (male:female=270:330; mean 63 years) undergoing CTC for colorectal cancer screening on an individual basis were consecutively enrolled in the study. Out of them, 503 patients (group 1) underwent CTC with rectal tagging, of which 55 had a total of 77 colonic lesions. The remaining 97 patients (group 2) were randomly selected to receive CTC with oral tagging of which 15 had a total of 20 colonic lesions. CTC findings were compared with optical colonoscopy, and per-segment image quality was visually assessed using a semi-quantitative score (1=poor, 2=adequate, 3=excellent). In 70/600 patients (11.7%), CTC was performed twice with both types of tagging over a 5-year follow-up cancer screening program. In this subgroup, patient acceptance was rated via phone interview two weeks after CTC using a semi-quantitative scale (1=poor, 2=fair, 3=average, 4=good, 5=excellent).

RESULTS

Mean per-polyp sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of CTC with rectal vs oral tagging were 96.1% (CI95% 85.4÷99.3%) vs 89.4% (CI95% 65.4÷98.1%), 95.3% (CI95% 90.7÷97.8%) vs 95.8% (CI95% 87.6÷98.9%), 86.0% (CI95% 73.6÷93.3) vs 85.0% (CI95% 61.1÷96.0%), and 98.8% (CI95% 95.3÷99.8%) vs 97.2% (CI95% 89.4÷99.5%), respectively (p>0.05). Polyp detection rates were not statistically different between groups 1 and 2 (p>0.05). Overall examination time was significantly shorter with rectal than with oral tagging (18.3±3.5 vs 215.6±10.3 minutes, respectively; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal iodine tagging can be an effective alternative to oral tagging for CTC with the advantages of greater patient acceptance and lower overall examination time.

Controversies in colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and a good candidate for screening programmes. However, there is controversy concerning which of the available screening tests should be used.

SUMMARY

There is general agreement that screening for CRC in the asymptomatic population should begin at the age of 50. Several different screening methods are available which can be separated into those that mainly detect cancers: faecal occult blood tests [guaiac (FOBT) and immunochemical (FIT)], genetic stool tests, blood tests and the M2-pyruvate kinase (M2-PK) test. Methods that detect cancers and polyps are colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT-colonography (CT-C) and colon capsule endoscopy. The only tests for which a reduction in CRC mortality compared to no screening have been proven in randomized trials are FOBT and sigmoidoscopy. Several trials suggest that FIT are superior to FOBT in terms of detection rates of cancers and advanced adenomas and possibly compliance. There is indirect evidence suggesting efficacy of colonoscopy as a screening test. The role of CT-C is controversial. There is data suggesting a good sensitivity for neoplasia >9 mm with a lower sensitivity for smaller neoplasia. However, radiation exposure is considered a major limitation in some countries. Unresolved questions include the lesion cut-off for referral to colonoscopy and work-up of extracolonic findings. For other methods, like genetic stool testing using newer markers, blood tests, capsule endoscopy and M2-PK, there is currently insufficient data on screening of the asymptomatic population. Key Messages: Colorectal screening is recommended and should be performed in the form of an organized programme. If detection of early-stage cancers is the aim of a screening programme, FIT seem to be superior to FOBT. If detection and removal of adenomas is the aim of a screening programme, endoscopic methods seem to be good alternatives. Sigmoidoscopy is easier to perform but will likely only have an effect on distal cancers. Colonoscopy is more invasive but enables inspection of the whole colon. The role of CT-C, capsule endoscopy, genetic stool tests, blood tests and M2-PK is currently unknown.

History, evolution, and current status of radiologic imaging tests for colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer screening is thought to be an effective tool with which to reduce the mortality from colorectal cancer through early detection and removal of colonic adenomas and early colon cancers. In this article, we review the history, evolution, and current status of imaging tests of the colon-including single-contrast barium enema, double-contrast barium enema, computed tomographic (CT) colonography, and magnetic resonance (MR) colonography-for colorectal cancer screening. Despite its documented value in the detection of colonic polyps, the double-contrast barium enema has largely disappeared as a screening test because it is widely perceived as a labor-intensive, time-consuming, and technically demanding procedure. In the past decade, the barium enema has been supplanted by CT colonography as the major imaging test in colorectal cancer screening in the United States, with MR colonography emerging as another viable option in Europe. Although MR colonography does not require ionizing radiation, the radiation dose for CT colonography has decreased substantially, and regular screening with this technique has a high benefit-to-risk ratio. In recent years, CT colonography has been validated as an effective tool for use in colorectal cancer screening that is increasingly being disseminated.

Electronic cleansing in fecal-tagging dual-energy CT colonography based on material decomposition and virtual colon tagging

Dual-energy CT provides a promising solution to identify tagged fecal materials in electronic cleansing (EC) for fecal-tagging CT colonography (CTC). In this study, we developed a new EC method based on virtual colon tagging (VCT) for minimizing EC artifacts by use of the material decomposition ability in dual-energy CTC images. In our approach, a localized three-material decomposition model decomposes each voxel into a material mixture vector and the first partial derivatives of three base materials: luminal air, soft tissue, and iodine-tagged fecal material. A Poisson-based derivative smoothing algorithm smoothes the derivatives and implicitly smoothes the associated material mixture fields. VCT is a means for marking the entire colonic lumen by virtually elevating the CT value of luminal air as high as that of the tagged fecal materials to differentiate effectively soft-tissue structures from air-tagging mixtures. A dual-energy EC scheme based on VCT method, denoted as VCT-EC, was developed, in which the colonic lumen was first virtually tagged and then segmented by its high values in VCT images. The performance of the VCT-EC scheme was evaluated in a phantom study and a clinical study. Our results demonstrated that our VCT-EC scheme may provide a significant reduction of EC artifacts.

Bowel cleansing before CT colonography: comparison between two minimal-preparation regimens

AIM

To compare two regimens of reduced bowel preparation and faecal tagging for CT colonography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single centre, prospective, randomized, noninferiority study, in which 52 consecutive adults underwent routine CT colonography. Patients, following a three-day low-fibre diet, received one of the two reduced preparations: 1-L polyethylene glycol and four tablets of bisacodyl in association with 90 mL of Iopamidol for faecal tagging administered on the same day as CTC examination (group 1); or a standard "iodine-only" preparation, consisting in 180 ml of Iopamidol the day before the examination (group 2). Primary outcome was the overall quality of bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients per group were included. Per segment analysis showed preparation of diagnostic quality in 97.4% of segments in group 1 and in 95.5% in group 2 (p = ns). Per-patient analysis showed optimal quality of preparation in 76.9% of patients in group 1 and in 84.6% in group 2 (p = ns). Patient tolerability to both preparations was not different.

CONCLUSION

A limited bowel preparation consisting of 1-L PEG and four tablets of bisacodyl in association with 90 mL of Iodine for faecal tagging administered on the same day as CTC examination is feasible and offers bowel cleansing comparable to "iodine-only" preparation.

KEY POINTS

• Low-dose PEG bisacodyl and Iopamidol preparation is feasible, providing adequate bowel cleansing. • Faecal tagging is not different from the two limited preparations. • Patient tolerability to the two colon cleansing regimens is similar.

Ultra-low peak voltage CT colonography: effect of iterative reconstruction algorithms on performance of radiologists who use anthropomorphic colonic phantoms

PURPOSE

To analyze the effect of a decrease in computed tomographic (CT) colonographic voltage, from 100 and 120 kVp to 80 kVp and reconstructed with filtered back projection ( FBP filtered back projection ), on radiation dose, image noise, and diagnostic performance in anthropomorphic phantoms and to assess the effect of iterative reconstruction ( IR iterative reconstruction ) algorithms on radiologists' performance for 80-kVp CT colonography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven colon phantoms with 68 simulated polyps (≥6 mm) were scanned at three peak voltage settings (80, 100, 120 kVp) and 10 mAs. Images were reconstructed by using FBP filtered back projection , hybrid statistic-based IR iterative reconstruction , and knowledge-based IR iterative reconstruction algorithms. Effective radiation dose, image noise, and per-polyp sensitivity were recorded and compared by two reviewers with Friedman test, repeated measures analysis of variance, and McNemar test.

RESULTS

Median size-specific dose estimate and effective radiation dose of 80-kVp CT colonography was 0.231 mGy and 0.167 mSv, respectively, which was lower than with 100- and 120-kVp CT colonography, with significant difference between 80 and 120 kVp (P = .0005). Image noise (202.0 HU) at 80-kVp FBP filtered back projection CT colonography was significantly higher than at 100-kVp FBP filtered back projection (139.1 HU) and 120-kVp FBP filtered back projection (120.4 HU) (P < .0001). Per-polyp sensitivity (reviewer 1, 14.7% [10 of 68]; reviewer 2, 7.4% [five of 68]) at 80-kVp FBP filtered back projection was significantly lower than at 100-kVp FBP filtered back projection (reviewer 1, 57.4% [39 of 68]; reviewer 2, 39.7% [27 of 68]) and 120-kVp FBP filtered back projection (reviewer 1, 85.3% [58 of 68]; reviewer 2, 83.8% [57 of 68]) (P < .0001). With statistic-based IR iterative reconstruction , image noise at 80 kVp decreased significantly (52.8% [106.7 HU of 202.0 HU]) compared with that at 80-kVp FBP filtered back projection (P < .0001), but per-polyp sensitivity (reviewer 1, 79.4% [54 of 68]; reviewer 2, 66.2% [45 of 68]) at 80-kVp statistic-based IR iterative reconstruction remained significantly lower than at 100-kVp statistic-based IR iterative reconstruction (reviewer 1, 95.6% [65 of 68]; reviewer 2, 86.8% [59 of 68]) (P = .001) and 120-kVp statistic-based IR iterative reconstruction (reviewer 1, 98.5% [67 of 68]; reviewer 2, 89.7% [61 of 68]) (P < .001). For knowledge-based IR iterative reconstruction , per-polyp sensitivity at 80 kVp was improved to 98.5% (67 of 68) and 94.1% (64 of 68), not significantly different from that at 100 kVp (reviewer 1, 100% [68 of 68]; reviewer 2, 95.6% [65 of 68]) and 120 kVp (reviewer 1, 100% [68 of 68]; reviewer 2, 95.6% [65 of 68]) (P > .999).

CONCLUSION

A decrease in tube voltage to 80 kVp caused reduction in radiation dose (0.166 mSv) with deterioration in image noise and per-polyp sensitivity. By using a knowledge-based IR iterative reconstruction algorithm, radiologists' performance of 80-kVp CT colonography was acceptable and on par with that at 100- or 120-kVp CT colonography.

Quantifying public preferences for different bowel preparation options prior to screening CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

CT colonography (CTC) may be an acceptable test for colorectal cancer screening but bowel preparation can be a barrier to uptake. This study tested the hypothesis that prospective screening invitees would prefer full-laxative preparation with higher sensitivity and specificity for polyps, despite greater burden, over less burdensome reduced-laxative or non-laxative alternatives with lower sensitivity and specificity.

DESIGN

Discrete choice experiment.

SETTING

Online, web-based survey.

PARTICIPANTS

2819 adults (45-54 years) from the UK responded to an online invitation to take part in a cancer screening study. Quota sampling ensured that the sample reflected key demographics of the target population and had no relevant bowel disease or medical qualifications. The analysis comprised 607 participants.

INTERVENTIONS

After receiving information about screening and CTC, participants completed 3-4 choice scenarios. Scenarios showed two hypothetical forms of CTC with different permutations of three attributes: preparation, sensitivity and specificity for polyps.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants considered the trade-offs in each scenario and stated their preferred test (or chose neither).

RESULTS

Preparation and sensitivity for polyps were both significant predictors of preferences (coefficients: -3.834 to -6.346 for preparation, 0.207-0.257 for sensitivity; p<0.0005). These attributes predicted preferences to a similar extent. Realistic specificity values were non-significant (-0.002 to 0.025; p=0.953). Contrary to our hypothesis, probabilities of selecting tests were similar for realistic forms of full-laxative, reduced-laxative and non-laxative preparations (0.362-0.421). However, they were substantially higher for hypothetical improved forms of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparations with better sensitivity for polyps (0.584-0.837).

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of CTC following non-laxative or reduced-laxative preparations is unlikely to be greater than following full-laxative preparation as perceived gains from reduced burden may be diminished by reduced sensitivity. However, both attributes are important so a more sensitive form of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparation might improve uptake substantially.

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.

Barriers to screening colonoscopy in an urban population: a study to help focus further efforts to attain full compliance

BACKGROUND

Awareness of colorectal cancer and decision for colorectal cancer screening is influenced by multiple factors including ethnicity, level of education, and adherence to regular medical follow up.

OBJECTIVE

Our survey aimed at assessing barriers to colorectal cancer screening among urban population.

DESIGN

This study is a survey of the general population.

SETTING

This study was made at a local community in the downtown area of a metropolitan city.

PATIENTS/SUBJECTS

The study population for this survey included 2000 non-institutionalized residents from local community of Brooklyn downtown area of City of Brooklyn, NY, USA. All participants were 50 years or older.

INTERVENTION

No intervention was done.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

The survey questionnaire collected information about demographic, socioeconomic level, awareness of various cancers and their screening methods, and awareness of screening colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy was identified as the best screening test by 31 % of the subjects. Pain and discomfort was the major reason for not having a colonoscopy. The fear of a complication declined significantly after the first colonoscopy but fear of pain and discomfort increased. Difficulty with bowel preparation before a colonoscopy was a significant problem; it discouraged significant number of participants from having another colonoscopy.

LIMITATION

This study is limited by its small sample size.

CONCLUSION

Physician/family and peer influence seems important but influencing only a minority of subjects. Fear of complications should be allayed using accurate statistical information. Pain should be significantly diminished and/or eliminated during colonoscopy. Future research should focus to minimize complexity and discomfort associated with bowel preparation.

Evaluating patients' preferences for type of bowel preparation prior to screening CT colonography: convenience and comfort versus sensitivity and specificity

AIMS

To explore the relative value patients place on comfort and convenience versus test sensitivity and specificity in the context of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty semi-structured interviews were carried out with patients attending hospital for radiological tests unrelated to CTC. Preferences for CTC with different types of bowel preparation for CTC screening were examined and interviews were analysed thematically. The discussion guide included separate sections on CTC, bowel preparation methods (non-, reduced- and full-laxative), and sensitivity and specificity. Patients were given information on each topic in turn and asked about their views and preferences during each section.

RESULTS

Following information about the test, patients' attitudes towards CTC were positive. Following information on bowel preparation, full-laxative purgation was anticipated to cause more adverse physical and lifestyle effects than using reduced- or non-laxative preparation. However, stated preferences were approximately equally divided, largely due to patients anticipating that non-laxative preparations would reduce test accuracy (because the bowel was not thoroughly cleansed). Following information on sensitivity and specificity (which supported patients' expectations), the predominant stated preference was for full-laxative preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are likely to value test sensitivity and specificity over a more comfortable and convenient preparation. Future research should test this hypothesis on a larger sample.

Acceptability of oral iodinated contrast media: a head-to-head comparison of four media

OBJECTIVE

To assess the palatability of iodinated oral contrast media commonly used in abdominopelvic CT and CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

80 volunteers assessed the palatability of a 20-ml sample of a standard 30 mg ml(-1) dilution of Omnipaque® (iohexol; GE Healthcare, Cork, Ireland), Telebrix® (meglumine ioxithalamate; Guerbet, Aulnay-sous-Bois, France), Gastromiro® (iopamidol; Bracco, High Wycombe, UK) and Gastrografin® (sodium diatrizoate and meglumine diatrizoate; Bayer, Newbury, UK) in a computer-generated random order.

RESULTS

Gastrografin is rated significantly less palatable than the remaining media (p<0.005). Omnipaque and Telebrix are significantly more palatable than Gastromiro. No difference existed between Omnipaque and Telebrix. 39% of participants would refuse to consume the quantities of Gastrografin required for a CTC examination compared with Telebrix (7%) and Omnipaque (9%) (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Omnipaque and Telebrix are significantly more palatable than both Gastromiro and Gastrografin, with participants more willing to ingest them in larger quantities as well as being less expensive.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Omnipaque and Telebrix are significantly more palatable iodinated oral contrast media than both Gastromiro and Gastrografin, which has potential implications in compliance with both abdominopelvic CT and CTC.

Informatics in radiology: dual-energy electronic cleansing for fecal-tagging CT colonography

Electronic cleansing (EC) is an emerging technique for the removal of tagged fecal materials at fecal-tagging computed tomographic (CT) colonography. However, existing EC methods may generate various types of artifacts that severely impair the quality of the cleansed CT colonographic images. Dual-energy fecal-tagging CT colonography is regarded as a next-generation imaging modality. EC that makes use of dual-energy fecal-tagging CT colonographic images promises to be effective in reducing cleansing artifacts by means of applying the material decomposition capability of dual-energy CT. The dual-energy index (DEI), which is calculated from the relative change in the attenuation values of a material at two different photon energies, is a reliable and effective indicator for differentiating tagged fecal materials from various types of tissues on fecal-tagging CT colonographic images. A DEI-based dual-energy EC scheme uses the DEI to help differentiate the colonic lumen-including the luminal air, tagged fecal materials, and air-tagging mixture-from the colonic soft-tissue structures, and then segments the entire colonic lumen for cleansing of the tagged fecal materials. As a result, dual-energy EC can help identify partial-volume effects in the air-tagging mixture and inhomogeneous tagging in residual fecal materials, the major causes of EC artifacts. This technique has the potential to significantly improve the quality of EC and promises to provide images of a cleansed colon that are free of the artifacts commonly observed with conventional single-energy EC methods.

Bowel preparation for CT colonography

Bowel preparation represents an essential part of CT colonography, as the accuracy of the exam is strongly related to the adequacy of colonic cleansing, and a poor bowel preparation may compromise the diagnostic quality even despite optimization of all other acquisition parameters. Residual stool and fluid in the large bowel may affect the interpretation of the exam and may increase the number of false positives and false negatives. In this regard, the majority of patients having undergone CT colonography state that bowel preparation is the most unpleasant part. Unfortunately, to date no definite consensus has been reached about the ideal bowel preparation technique, and there is great variability in preparation strategies across diagnostic centers. The purpose of this review article is to describe the development and evolution of bowel preparation techniques in order to choose the best approach for optimizing the diagnostic quality of CT colonography in each patient.

An interview study analysing patients' experiences and perceptions of non-laxative or full-laxative preparation with faecal tagging prior to CT colonography

AIM

To compare patients' experiences of either non- or full-laxative bowel preparation with additional faecal tagging and subsequent computed tomographic (CT) colonography using in-depth interviews to elicit detailed responses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who received CT colonography after non- (n = 9) or full-laxative (n = 9) preparation participated in a semi-structured telephone interview at least 2 days after the investigation. Full-laxative preparation consisted of magnesium citrate and sodium picosulphate administered at home (or polyethylene glycol, if contraindicated), followed by hospital-based faecal tagging with iohexol. Non-laxative preparation was home-based barium sulphate for faecal tagging. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed to identify recurrent themes on patients' perceptions and experiences.

RESULTS

Experiences of full-laxative preparation were usually negative and characterized by pre-test diarrhoea that caused significant interference with daily routine. Post-test flatus was common. Non-laxative preparation was well-tolerated; patients reported no or minimal changes to bowel habit and rapid return to daily routine. Patients reported worry and uncertainty about the purpose of faecal tagging. For iohexol, this also added burden from waiting before testing.

CONCLUSION

Patients' responses supported previous findings that non-laxative preparation is more acceptable than full-laxative preparation but both can be improved. Faecal tagging used in combination with laxative preparation is poorly understood, adding burden and worry. Home-based non-laxative preparation is also poorly understood and patients require better information on the purpose and mechanism in order to give fully informed consent. This may also optimize adherence to instructions. Allowing home-based self-administration of all types of preparation would prevent waiting before testing.

Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

In recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) has attracted considerable attention. In order to better understand patient preferences for CTC versus colonoscopy, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. Data sources included published studies, abstracts and book chapters, in any language, with publication dates from 1995 through February 2012, and with prospective or retrospective enrollment of diagnostic or screening patients who had undergone both procedures and explicit assessment of their preference for colonoscopy versus CTC. A predefined algorithm identified eligible studies using computer and hand searches performed by two independent investigators. We used a mixed effects model to pool preference differences (defined as the proportion of subjects who preferred CTC minus the proportion who preferred colonoscopy for each study). Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 5616 subjects. In 16 of these studies, patients preferred CTC over colonoscopy, while colonoscopy was preferred in three studies. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, an overall pooled preference difference was not calculated. Stratified analysis revealed that studies published in radiology journals (preference difference 0.590 [95 % CI 0.485, 0.694]) seemed more likely than studies in gastroenterology (0.218 [-0.015-0.451]) or general medicine journals (-0.158 [-0.389-0.072]) to report preference for CTC (p<0.001). Studies by radiology authors showed a trend towards stronger preference for CTC compared with studies by gastroenterology authors. Symptomatic patients expressed no preference, but screening patients preferred CTC. There was no difference in preferences between studies using "masked" and "unmasked" preference ascertainment methods. Three studies featuring limited bowel preparations for CTC reported marked preference for CTC. There was no evidence of publication bias, while cumulative and exclusion analysis did not show any temporal trend or dominant study. Limitations included data heterogeneity and preference ascertainment limitations. In conclusion, most included studies reported preference for CTC. On stratified analysis, screening patients preferred CTC while diagnostic patients showed no preference. Studies published in radiology journals showed significantly stronger preference for CTC compared with studies in gastroenterology or general medicine journals.

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

Detection of flat colorectal polyps at screening CT colonography in comparison with conventional polypoid lesions

BACKGROUND

Although the screening of small, flat polyps is clinically important, the role of CT colonography (CTC) screening in their detection has not been thoroughly investigated.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the detection capability and usefulness of CTC in the screening of flat and polypoid lesions by comparing CTC with optic colonoscopy findings as the gold standard.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We evaluated the CTC detection capability for flat colorectal polyps with a flat surface and a height not exceeding 3 mm (n = 42) by comparing to conventional polypoid lesions (n = 418) according to the polyp diameter. Four types of reconstruction images including multiplanar reconstruction, volume rendering, virtual gross pathology, and virtual endoscopic images were used for visual analysis. We compared the abilities of the four reconstructions for polyp visualization.

RESULTS

Detection sensitivity for flat polyps was 31.3%, 44.4%, and 87.5% for lesions measuring 2-3 mm, 4-5 mm, and ≥6 mm, respectively; the corresponding sensitivity for polypoid lesions was 47.6%, 79.0%, and 91.7%. The overall sensitivity for flat lesions (47.6%) was significantly lower than polypoid lesions (64.1%). Virtual endoscopic imaging showed best visualization among the four reconstructions. Colon cancers were detected in eight patients by optic colonoscopy, and CTC detected colon cancers in all eight patients.

CONCLUSION

CTC using 64-row multidetector CT is useful for colon cancer screening to detect colorectal polyps while the detection of small, flat lesions is still challenging.

Evaluation of two minimal-preparation regimes for CT colonography: optimising image quality and patient acceptability

OBJECTIVE

To compare a 2 day bowel preparation regime of barium, iodine and a mild stimulant laxative with a 1 day iodine-only regime for CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

100 consecutive patients underwent CTC. The first 50 patients (Regime 1) ingested 1 bisacodyl tablet twice a day 3 days before CTC and 1 dose each of 50 ml of barium and 20 ml of iodinated contrast per day starting 2 days before CTC. The second 50 patients (Regime 2) ingested 3 doses of iodinated contrast over 24 h prior to CTC. Volumes of residual stool and fluid, and the effectiveness of stool and fluid tagging, were graded according to methods established by Taylor et al (Taylor S, Slaker A, Burling D, Tam E, Greenhalgh R, Gartner L, et al. CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 32-42). A 3 day low-residue diet was taken by both cohorts. Questionnaires rating the side-effects and burden of the bowel preparation were compared to a control cohort of patients undergoing barium enema.

RESULTS

The proportion of colons producing none/scattered stool (score 1) was 90.3% with Regime 1 and 65.0% with Regime 2 (p<0.005). Any residual stool was significantly better tagged with Regime 1 (score 5), with 91.7% of Regime 1 exhibiting optimum tagging vs 71.3% of Regime 2 (p<0.05). No significant differences in side-effects between the bowel preparation regimes for CTC were elicited. Bowel preparation for barium enema was tolerated significantly worse than both of the CTC bowel preparation regimes.

CONCLUSION

Regime 1, containing a 3 day preparation of a mild laxative, barium and iodine, produced a significantly better prepared colon, with no difference in patient acceptability.

Partial preparation computed tomographic colonography: a feasibility study

We retrospectively evaluated computed tomographic colonography examinations of patients who have had a partial bowel preparation and compared the quality of their preparation with patients who have had a full bowel preparation. In total, 27 patients undergoing computed tomographic colonography examination (10 patients with partial bowel preparation and 17 with full bowel preparation) had their examinations retrospectively reviewed by three independent radiologists in a blinded manner, with evaluation of residual stool, distention, residual fluid, and overall bowel preparation quality. Six colon segments were evaluated individually and independently for these four variables (a total of 161 segments tested). Comparisons were made with the Mann-Whitney test between the partial preparation group and the full preparation group. Partial preparation included stool and fluid tagging plus 20 mg of bisacodyl orally; full preparation included stool and fluid tagging plus 2 L of polyethylene glycol solution. No significant clinical difference was found in colon preparation between the partial and full bowel preparation groups--when evaluated with individual colon segments or by independent readers. Interreader correlation was high. This pilot study indicates that full bowel preparation is not required for diagnostic-quality computed tomographic colonography examination. Further evaluation of this partial bowel preparation regimen is warranted.

CT colonography: patient tolerance of laxative free fecal tagging regimen versus traditional cathartic cleansing

PURPOSE

The aim of our prospective study was to compare patient tolerance of laxative free fecal tagging regimen (LFT) versus traditional cathartic cleansing (TC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

264 patients, at average risk for development of colorectal cancer (105 men and 159 women; mean age 62 years ± 5 SD), underwent 32 rows CT colonography. Patients were alternatively placed into 2 study groups: Group 1 (n = 132) followed TC and Group 2 (n = 132) LFT. TC protocol consisted of no fiber diet and Phospho-lax(®) 80 mL in 2 L of water the day before imaging. LFT protocol consisted of no fiber diet and ingestion with meals of 30 mL of water-soluble iodinated contrast agent (Gastrografin(®)) for 2 days before imaging. No frank laxative drugs were administered. All studies were reviewed in a combined fashion, primary 2D followed by 3D endoluminal and dissected views. After the examination all patients were asked to provide a feedback about tolerance to the each bowel preparation. The first 30 patients of each group were also investigated with optical colonoscopy (OC) used as gold standard to confirm our diagnosis (Group 1* and Group 2*).

CONCLUSIONS

LFT reduces discomfort and seems to improve diagnostic accuracy of CTC.

CT colonography without cathartic preparation: positive predictive value and patient experience in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To determine the positive predictive value (PPV) for polyps ≥ 6 mm detected at CT colonography (CTC) performed without cathartic preparation, with low-dose iodine faecal tagging regimen and to evaluate patient experience.

METHODS

1920 average-risk patients underwent CTC without cathartic preparation. Faecal tagging was performed by diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium at a total dose of 60 ml (22.2 g of iodine).The standard interpretation method was primary 3D with 2D problem solving. We calculated per-patient and per-polyp PPV in relation to size and morphology. All colonic segments were evaluated for image quality (faecal tagging, amount of liquid and solid residual faeces and luminal distension). Patients completed a questionnaire before and after CTC to assess preparation and examination experience.

RESULTS

Per-polyp PPV for detected lesions of ≥ 6 mm, 6-9 mm, ≥ 10 mm and ≥ 30 mm were 94.3%, 93.1%, 94.7% and 98%, respectively. Per-polyp PPV, according to lesion morphology, was 94.6%, 97.3% and 85.1% for sessile, pedunculated and flat polyps, respectively. Per-patient PPV was 92.8%. Preparation without frank cathartics was reported to cause minimal discomfort by 78.9% of patients.

CONCLUSION

CTC without cathartic preparation and low-dose iodine faecal tagging may yield high PPVs for lesions ≥ 6 mm and is well accepted by patients.

KEY POINTS

• Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) without cathartic preparation is well accepted by patients • Cathartic-free faecal tagging CTC yields high positive predictive values • CTC without cathartic preparation could improve uptake of colorectal cancer screening.

Laxative-free CT colonography

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine if the introduction of faecal tagging to CT colonography (CTC) made the examination easier to tolerate or reduced the number of false-positives.

METHODS

Our department changed bowel preparation for CT colonography from Picolax (Ferring Pharmaceuticals Ltd, London, UK) to Gastrografin (Bracco Diagnostics Inc, Princeton, NJ) only with a modified diet. Questionnaires were given to a subgroup of patients within these cohorts. The numbers of false-positives were compared between two cohorts before and after this change. false-positives were defined as lesions reported on CT that were not confirmed by subsequent endoscopic examination. Polyps were matched if they were in the same or adjacent segments, and were within 5 mm of the reported size.

RESULTS

412 patients were identified from the Picolax cohort, and 116 from the Gastrografin cohort. 62 patients in each group completed questionnaires. Gastrografin produced less diarrhoea; 34% had five or more bowel motions in the previous day and night, compared with 77% for Picolax (p<0.001), although more patients found drinking it unpleasant compared with Picolax (85% reported drinking Picolax as "easy" vs 61% for Gastrografin; p=0.002). Picolax produced more non-diagnostic examinations, although this difference was not statistically significant. There was not a significant reduction in the numbers of false-positives (2 out of 112 for Gastrografin group, 14 out of 389 for the Picolax group; p=0.54).

CONCLUSION

Switching from Picolax to Gastrografin as a CTC preparation technique produced less diarrhoea, but did not reduce the number of false-positives.

Physician knowledge and appropriate utilization of computed tomographic colonography in colorectal cancer screening

GOALS

To assess physician understanding of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines in a pilot study.

BACKGROUND

CTC is a sensitive and specific method of detecting colorectal polyps and cancer. However, several factors have limited its clinical availability, and CRC screening guidelines have issued conflicting recommendations.

STUDY

A web-based survey was administered to physicians at two institutions with and without routine CTC availability.

RESULTS

398 of 1655 (24%) participants completed the survey, 59% was from the institution with routine CTC availability, 52% self-identified as trainees, and 15% as gastroenterologists. 78% had no personal experience with CTC. Only 12% was aware of any current CRC screening guidelines that included CTC. In a multiple regression model, gastroenterologists had greater odds of being aware of guidelines (OR 3.49, CI 1.67-7.26), as did physicians with prior CTC experience (OR 4.81, CI 2.39-9.68), controlling for institution, level of training, sex, and practice type. Based on guidelines that recommend CTC, when given a clinical scenario, 96% of physicians was unable to select the appropriate follow-up after a CTC, which was unaffected by institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Most physicians have limited experience with CTC and are unaware of recent recommendations concerning CTC in CRC screening.

Colorectal cancer screening: update for 2011

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the United States. Although mortality and incidence rates are declining in the United States, colorectal cancer screening remains underused. In addition, recent data suggest that colonoscopy, which is often considered the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening, is less protective for right-sided tumors, which are more likely to be flat or depressed and are more affected by an inadequate bowel preparation. Imaging technologies such as chromoendoscopy and narrow band imaging have been developed to improve delineation of suspicious lesions during colonoscopy. In addition, other new modalities such as computed tomography colonography (CTC), capsule endoscopy, fecal immunochemical tests, and fecal DNA tests may offer less invasive screening options for patients who decline colonoscopy.

Reduced cathartic bowel preparation for CT colonography: prospective comparison of 2-L polyethylene glycol and magnesium citrate

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare adequacy of colonic cleansing, adequacy of solid stool and fluid tagging, and patient acceptance by using reduced-volume, 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) versus magnesium citrate bowel preparations for CT colonography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was approved by the institutional Committee on Human Research and was compliant with HIPAA; all patients provided written consent. In this randomized, investigator-blinded study, 50 patients underwent oral preparation with either a 2-L PEG or a magnesium citrate solution, tagging with oral contrast agents, and subsequent CT colonography and segmentally unblinded colonoscopy. The residual stool (score 0 [best] to 3 [worst]) and fluid (score 0 [best] to 4 [worst]) burden and tagging adequacy were qualitatively assessed. Residual fluid attenuation was recorded as a quantitative measure of tagging adequacy. Patients completed a tolerance questionnaire within 2 weeks of scanning. Preparations were compared for residual stool and fluid by using generalized estimating equations; the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the qualitative tagging score, mean residual fluid attenuation, and adverse effects assessed on the patient experience questionnaire.

RESULTS

The mean residual stool (0.90 of three) and fluid burden (1.05 of four) scores for PEG were similar to those for magnesium citrate (0.96 [P = .58] and 0.98 [P = .48], respectively). However, the mean fecal and fluid tagging scores were significantly better for PEG (0.48 and 0.28, respectively) than for magnesium citrate (1.52 [P < .01] and 1.28 [P < .01], respectively). Mean residual fluid attenuation was higher for PEG (765 HU) than for magnesium citrate (443 HU, P = .01), and mean interpretation time was shorter for PEG (14.8 minutes) than for magnesium citrate (18.0 minutes, P = .04). Tolerance ratings were not significantly different between preparations.

CONCLUSION

Reduced-volume PEG and magnesium citrate bowel preparations demonstrated adequate cleansing effectiveness for CT colonography, with better tagging and shorter interpretation time observed in the PEG group. Adequate polyp detection was maintained but requires further validation because of the small number of clinically important polyps.

National CT colonography trial (ACRIN 6664): comparison of three full-laxative bowel preparations in more than 2500 average-risk patients

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to compare the effect of three different full-laxative bowel preparations on patient compliance, residual stool and fluid, reader confidence, and polyp detection at CT colonography (CTC).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A total of 2531 patients underwent CTC followed by colonoscopy for the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) National CTC Trial. Of this total, 2525 patients used one of three bowel preparations with bisacodyl tablets and stool and fluid tagging: 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG); 90 mL of phosphosoda; or 300 mL of magnesium citrate. Patients reported percent compliance with the bowel preparation and radiologists graded each CTC examination for the amount of residual fluid and stool on a scale from 1 (none) to 4 (nondiagnostic). Reader confidence for true-positive findings was reported on a 5-point scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high). Sensitivity and specificity for detecting polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 1 cm compared with colonoscopy were calculated for each preparation.

RESULTS

The most commonly prescribed preparation was phosphosoda (n = 1403) followed by PEG (n = 1020) and magnesium citrate (n = 102). Phosphosoda had the highest patient compliance (p = 0.01), least residual stool (p < 0.001), and highest reader confidence versus PEG for examinations with polyps (p = 0.06). Magnesium citrate had significantly more residual fluid compared with PEG and phosphosoda (p = 0.006). The sensitivity and specificity for detecting colon polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 1 cm did not differ significantly between preparations.

CONCLUSION

Polyp detection was comparable for all three preparations, although phosphosoda had significantly higher patient compliance and the least residual stool.

[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.

CT colonography: who attends training? A survey of participants at educational workshops

AIM

To obtain information regarding the demographics of attendees of computed tomography colonography (CTC) training workshops organized by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), in particular their prior expertise and current practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Attendees at five CTC training workshops conducted in Edinburgh (UK), Malmo (Sweden), Amsterdam (Netherlands), Pisa and Stresa (Italy) between February 2007 and April 2010 completed an online questionnaire. Responses were collated and descriptive statistics produced.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty-eight delegates responded; a response rate of 73%. There was wide geographical variability encompassing 20 European member-states and seven countries outside Europe. The overwhelming majority were radiologists (336; 97%). Of the respondents, 299 (86%) were already interpreting CTC in clinical practice but of these, 158 (54%) had no prior formal training in CTC whereas 21 (8%) had attended a previous workshop. Furthermore, of those reporting CTC, 227 (76%) had interpreted fewer than 50 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite political imperatives for other groups to interpret CTC, the vast majority of those attending training are radiologists. Worryingly, a significant proportion of these are apparently reporting CTC in clinical practice without adequate training.