Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study

Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Studies reported various diagnostic value of radiologic imaging modalities for diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer (CRC).

AIMS

To summary the diagnosis and management of CRC using computed tomography colonography (CTC), magnetic resonance colonography (MRC), and positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library for studies published before April 2021. The diagnostic performance of CTC, MRC, and PET/CT for CRC was summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 54 studies (17 studies for CTC, 8 studies for MRC, and 29 studies for PET/CT) were selected for final analysis. The sensitivity and specificity for CTC ranged from 27 to 100%, 88 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for CTC were 0.97 (95% CI 0.88-0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-1.00). The sensitivity and specificity for MRC ranged from 48 to 100%, 60 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRC were 0.98 (95% C: 0.77-1.00) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.84-0.98). The sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT ranged from 84 to 100%, 33 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.97). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CTC, MRC, and PET/CT was 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00), 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), and 0.97 (0.95% CI 0.95-0.98), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested both CTC and MRC with relative higher diagnostic value for diagnosing CRC, while PET/CT with higher diagnostic value in detecting local recurrence for patients with CRC.

Can Computed Tomography Colonography Replace Optical Colonoscopy in Detecting Colorectal Lesions?: State of the Art

Colorectal cancer is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Optical colonoscopy (OC) is widely accepted as the reference standard for the screening of colorectal polyps and cancers, and computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a valid alternative to OC. The purpose of this review was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of OC and CTC for colorectal lesions. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, and 18 articles were included. CTC has emerged in recent years as a potential screening examination with high accuracy for the detection of colorectal lesions. However, the clinical application of CTC as a screening technique is limited because it is highly dependent on the size of the lesions and has poor performance in detecting individual lesions <5 mm or flat lesions, which, although rarely, can have a malignant potential.

Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance and computed tomography colonography for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the recommended procedure for colorectal cancer (CRC), but majority of the patients were diagnosed with advanced or metastatic CRC. Currently, there were inconsistent results about the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) and computed tomography colonography (CTC) in early CRC diagnosis. Our study conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the diagnostic value of MRC and CTC for CRC surveillance.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library to select relevant studies. The summary sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic value of MRC and CTC, respectively.

RESULT

Twenty-five studies including 2985 individuals were selected in the final analysis. Eight studies evaluated the diagnostic value of MRC, and 17 studies assessed CTC. The summary sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC in MRC for early detection of CRC were 0.98 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.80-1.00), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.85-0.97), 15.48 (95% CI: 6.30-38.04), 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00-0.25), 115.09 (95% CI: 15.37-862.01), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99), respectively. In addition, the sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC of CTC for diagnosing CRC were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.88-0.99), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 154.11 (95% CI: 67.81-350.22), 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01-0.13), 642.51 (95% CI: 145.05-2846.02), and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00). No significant differences were found between MRC and CTC for DOR in all the subsets.

CONCLUSION

The findings of meta-analysis indicated that MRC and CTC have higher diagnostic values for early CRC diagnosis. However, the DOR for diagnosing CRC between MRC and CTC showed no significance.

Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance versus computed tomography colonography for colorectal cancer: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Advanced colorectal cancers were associated with poor prognosis, and early diagnosis was important for high-risk patients. Colonography is commonly used for diagnosing colorectal cancer. However, a few studies reported the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) versus computed tomography colonography (CTC). This study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of MRC versus CTC for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Twenty-three studies on the diagnosis of colorectal cancer using MRC or CTC were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases until July 2017. The ratios of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated to compare the diagnostic value of MRC versus CTC.

RESULTS

The summary sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and area under the ROC for MRC were 0.97 (0.81-1.00), 0.92 (0.80-0.97), 11.71 (4.46-30.73), 0.03 (0.00-0.24), and 0.98 (0.97-0.99), respectively, for diagnosing colorectal cancer. The pooled estimates for CTC in diagnosing colorectal cancer were as follows: sensitivity, 0.96 (0.90-0.98); specificity, 1.00 (0.99-1.00); PLR, 197.32 (73.21-531.85); NLR, 0.04 (0.02-0.11); and area under the ROC, 1.00 (0.99-1.00). No significant differences were found between MRC and CTC for sensitivity, specificity, and NLR. MRC was associated with lower PLR and area under the ROC for diagnosing colorectal cancer compared with CTC.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated MRC and CTC as potential diagnostic approaches for colorectal cancer. CTC had a higher diagnostic value of PLR and area under the ROC for colorectal cancer.

Prognostic value of preoperative radiological staging assessed by computed tomography in patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the prognostic value of preoperative locoregional staging in patients with colon cancer and who underwent curative resection.

METHODS

A total of 536 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for colon cancer from February 1999 to November 2007 were prospectively enrolled. The clinicopathological variables, including the radiological staging using computed tomography, were analyzed for the prognostic significance.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall survival rates of the patients with radiological T1, T2, T3, and T4 were 96%, 89%, 75%, and 79%, respectively (P = 0.028). The 5-year overall survival rates were 83%, 76%, and 54%, respectively, for patients with radiological N0, N1, and N2 disease (P < 0.001). The 5-year overall survival rates of the patients with radiological TNM (tumor-node-metastasis) stages I, II, and III were 90%, 81%, and 70%, respectively (P < 0.001) and the 5-year overall survival rates of the patients with pathological TNM stages I, II, and III were 93%, 80%, and 70%, respectively (P = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, the radiological T and N categories remained independent prognostic factors for both overall survival and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Radiological staging is an independent predictor of long-term survival in the preoperative setting.

Preferences for CT colonography and colonoscopy as diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is an alternative diagnostic test to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer and polyps. The aim of this study was to determine test characteristics important to patients and to examine trade-offs in attributes that patients are willing to accept in the context of the diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A discrete choice study was used to assess preferences of patients with clinical indications suspicious of colorectal cancer who experienced both CTC and colonoscopy as part of a diagnostic accuracy study in South Australia. Results were analyzed by using a mixed logit model and presented as odds ratios (ORs) for preferring CTC over colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy was preferred over CTC as the need for a second procedure after CTC increased (OR of preferring CTC to colonoscopy = 0.013), as the likelihood of missing cancers or polyps increased (OR of preferring CTC to colonoscopy = 0.62), and as CTC test cost increased (OR of preferring CTC to colonoscopy = 0.65-0.80). CTC would be preferred to colonoscopy if a minimal bowel preparation was available (OR = 1.7). Some patients were prepared to trade off the diagnostic and therapeutic advantage of colonoscopy for a CTC study with a less intensive bowel preparation. Preferences also varied significantly with sociodemographic characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite CTC's often being perceived as a preferred test, this may not always be the case. Informed decision making for diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer should include discussion of the benefits, downsides, and uncertainties associated with alternative tests, as patients are willing and able to make trade-offs between what they perceive as the advantages and disadvantages of these diagnostic tests.

Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection--systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies assessing the sensitivity of both computed tomographic (CT) colonography and optical colonoscopy (OC) for colorectal cancer detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. The primary data source was the results of a detailed PubMed search from 1994 to 2009. Diagnostic studies evaluating CT colonography detection of colorectal cancer were assessed by using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, in particular requiring both OC and histologic confirmation of disease. Studies that also included a mechanism to assess true-positive versus false-negative diagnoses at OC (eg, segmental unblinding) were used to calculate OC sensitivity. Assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Potential bias was ascertained by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines. Specific CT colonography techniques were cataloged. Forest plots of per-patient sensitivity were produced on the basis of random-effect models. Potential bias across primary studies was assessed by using the I(2) statistic. Original study authors were contacted for data clarification when necessary.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies provided data on 11,151 patients with a cumulative colorectal cancer prevalence of 3.6% (414 cancers). The sensitivity of CT colonography for colorectal cancer was 96.1% (398 of 414; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.8%, 97.7%). No heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%) was detected. No cancers were missed at CT colonography when both cathartic and tagging agents were combined in the bowel preparation. The sensitivity of OC for colorectal cancer, derived from a subset of 25 studies including 9223 patients, was 94.7% (178 of 188; 95% CI: 90.4%, 97.2%). A moderate degree of heterogeneity (I(2) = 50%) was present.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography is highly sensitive for colorectal cancer, especially when both cathartic and tagging agents are combined in the bowel preparation. Given the relatively low prevalence of colorectal cancer, primary CT colonography may be more suitable than OC for initial investigation of suspected colorectal cancer, assuming reasonable specificity.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11101887/-/DC1.

Computed tomographic colonography: ready for prime time?

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a noninvasive method to evaluate the colon and has received considerable attention in the last decade as a colon-imaging tool. The technique has also been proposed as a potential primary colon cancer-screening method in the United States. The accuracy of the technique for the detection of large lesions seems to be high, perhaps in the range of colonoscopy. Overall, the field is rapidly evolving. Available data suggest that CT colonography, although a viable colon cancer screening modality in the United States, is not ready for widespread implementation, largely because of the lack of standards for training and reading and the limited number of skilled readers.

Diagnostic precision of CT in local staging of colon cancers: a meta-analysis

AIM

To determine the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) in detecting disease with invasion beyond the muscularis propria (MP) and malignant lymph nodes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search of Ovid, Embase, the Cochrane database, and Medline using Pubmed, Google Scholar and Vivisimo search engines was performed to identify studies reporting on the accuracy of CT to predict the staging of colonic tumours. Publication bias was demonstrated by Funnel plots. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated using a bivariate random effects model and hierarchical summary operating curves (HSROC) were generated.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies fulfilled all the necessary inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR for detection of tumour invasion were 86% (95% CI: 78-92%); 78% (95% CI: 71-84%); 22.4 (95% CI: 11.9-42.4). Similarly, the values for nodal detection were 70% (95% CI: 63-73%); 78% (95% CI: 73-82%); 8.1(95% CI: 4.7-14.1). In the subgroup analysis, the best results were obtained in studies utilizing multidetector CT (MDCT).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative staging CT accurately distinguishes between tumours confined to the bowel wall and those invading beyond the MP; however, it is significantly poorer at identifying nodal status. MDCT provides the best results.

CT colonography training for radiographers--a formal evaluation

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of a new intensive "hands-on" course designed to train small teams of radiographers in computed tomography colonography (CTC) technique and initial interpretation for patient triage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The course comprised small-group lectures, active participation in the daily CTC service with practical technique and image interpretation training by experienced radiologists and radiographers. Evaluation was by assessment of knowledge using randomized sets of multiple choice questions (MCQ; pre/post-course), practical technique using checklists and expert global scores, and interpretation performance outcomes using randomized pre/post-course test datasets (five validated CTC examinations each). Paired t-tests were used to investigate change in performance for MCQ score and interpretation accuracy.

RESULTS

Thirteen courses with 49 participants were evaluated over 2 years. Practical skills were high, with mean (SD) checklist scores of 14/15 (0.85) and global scores of 26/30 (2.3). MCQ scores increased significantly from a mean of 59% pre-course to 69% post-course, p<0.001. Correct classification of CTC examination improved significantly from a mean of 55% pre-course to 71% post-course, p<0.001. Cancer and large polyp (>10mm) detection rates also improved significantly from 49% to 60%, p=0.002.

CONCLUSION

Structured training in CTC can significantly improve knowledge and interpretation skills of radiographers, while assessing safe procedural performance. Implementation of similar programmes nationally may help reduce performance gaps between centres.

Computed tomographic colonography in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the sensitivity of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in diagnosing colorectal cancer and to explore the reasons why these cancers are missed on CTC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent CTC in the 56-month period from 1 January 2004 to 1 September 2008, and all cases of colorectal cancer recorded in the National Cancer Registry database from 1 January 2004 to 1 December 2008, were identified. Cases from the two data sets were then matched to identify all patients in whom CTC had been performed more than 6 weeks before a histological report was available. CTC reports and patients' records were reviewed to determine the cancer site, and images were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 3888 patients underwent CTC over a 56-month interval. After matching with the National Cancer Registry database, colorectal cancer was identified in 131 patients, whereas it had been suspected on CTC in 123 patients. One of the patients with missed cancer was excluded, leaving seven (5.3 per cent) missed cancers, four of which were located in the caecum. Five cancers were missed because of technical limitations of CTC and two were due to perceptive errors. Systems errors and severe patient co-morbidity contributed to three of the cases. The sensitivity of CTC for colorectal cancer was 95 (95 per cent confidence interval 89 to 98) per cent.

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity of 95 per cent for CTC in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer compares favourably with that of double-contrast barium enema (92 per cent) and colonoscopy (94 per cent).

Can radiologist training and testing ensure high performance in CT colonography? Lessons From the National CT Colonography Trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to describe the experience of the National CT Colonography Trial with radiologist training and qualification testing at CT colonography (CTC) and to correlate this experience with subsequent performance in a prospective screening study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Ten inexperienced radiologists participated in a 1-day educational course, during which partial CTC examinations of 27 cases with neoplasia and full CTC examinations of 15 cases were reviewed using primary 2D and 3D search. Subsequently 15 radiologists took a qualification examination composed of 20 CTC cases. Radiologists who did not pass the first qualification examination attended a second day of focused retraining of 30 cases, which was followed by a second qualification examination. The results of the initial and subsequent qualification tests were compared with reader performance in a large prospective screening trial.

RESULTS

All radiologists took and passed the qualification examinations. Seven radiologists passed the qualification examination the first time it was offered, and eight radiologists passed after focused retraining. Significantly better sensitivities were obtained on the second versus the first examination for the retrained radiologists (difference = 16%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in sensitivities between the groups who passed the qualification examination the first time versus those who passed the second time in the prospective study (88% vs 92%, respectively; p = 0.612). In the prospective study, the odds of correctly identifying diseased cases increased by 1.5 fold for every 50-case increase in reader experience or formal training (p < 0.025).

CONCLUSION

A significant difference in performance was observed among radiologists before formalized training, but testing and focused retraining improved radiologist performance, resulting in an overall high sensitivity across radiologists in a subsequent, prospective screening study.

Radiologists should read CT colonography

This article defines the necessary skill set and knowledge base required for accurate computed tomography colonography (CTC) interpretation. The components of the interpretative process as well as the various strategies currently employed are discussed. The role of extracolonic evaluation as an integral part of this examination is also covered. Within this context, the question of whether a radiologist or gastroenterologist is better suited to interpret this examination is explored.

ACR Colon Cancer Committee white paper: status of CT colonography 2009

PURPOSE

To review the current status and rationale of the updated ACR practice guidelines for CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

Clinical validation trials in both the United States and Europe are reviewed. Key technical aspects of the CTC examination are emphasized, including low-dose protocols, proper insufflation, and bowel preparation. Important issues of implementation are discussed, including training and certification, definition of the target lesion, reporting of colonic and extracolonic findings, quality metrics, reimbursement, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Successful validation trials in screening cohorts both in the United States with ACRIN and in Germany demonstrated sensitivity > or = 90% for patients with polyps >10 mm. Proper technique is critical, including low-dose techniques in screening cohorts, with an upper limit of the CT dose index by volume of 12.5 mGy per examination. Training new readers includes the requirement of interactive workstation training with 2-D and 3-D image display techniques. The target lesion is defined as a polyp > or = 6 mm, consistent with the American Cancer Society joint guidelines. Five quality metrics have been defined for CTC, with pilot data entered. Although the CMS national noncoverage decision in May 2009 was a disappointment, multiple third-party payers are reimbursing for screening CTC. Cost-effective modeling has shown CTC to be a dominant strategy, including in a Medicare cohort.

CONCLUSION

Supported by third-party payer reimbursement for screening, CTC will continue to further transition into community practice and can provide an important adjunctive examination for colorectal screening.

Virtual endoscopy using CT scan

The term virtual endoscopy refers to using either spiral computed tomography (CT colonography) or magnetic resonance scanning (MR colonography) combined with computer technology to produce high-resolution two- and three-dimensional imaging of the large bowel. Current CT techniques require meticulous bowel preparation and gas insufflation prior to the examination. The advantages of CT colonography over conventional colonography include safety, its ability to demonstrate the entire large bowel in almost all patients, even following incomplete endoscopy, to accurately localize lesions, and to examine the entire colon in patients with obstructing tumors. Additionally, CT colonography allows simultaneous preoperative tumor staging. Screening for colorectal polyps is a controversially discussed indication for CT colonography. Sensitivity and specificity range widely and decrease with decreasing polyp size. However, better results can be achieved using multidetector technology. Most frequently, the examination is well tolerated and assessed by patients to be more acceptable than conventional colonoscopy. There are no reported complications from CT colonography. The procedure requires a scan time of about 25 to 30 seconds with new multidetector CT scanners, and sedation is not used. Currently, CT colonography is less cost-effective than conventional endoscopy. Another disadvantage is the relatively high irradiation exposure associated with CT colonography. Therefore, at the moment, this technique does not appear ready to be included in general screening strategies. However, ongoing and future improvements may prove its value in colorectal examination strategies.

Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers?

The purpose of this study was to compare a primary uncleansed 2D and a primary electronically cleansed 3D reading strategy in CTC in limited prepped patients. Seventy-two patients received a low-fibre diet with oral iodine before CT-colonography. Six novices and two experienced observers reviewed both cleansed and uncleansed examinations in randomized order. Mean per-polyp sensitivity was compared between the methods by using generalized estimating equations. Mean per-patient sensitivity, and specificity were compared using the McNemar test. Results were stratified for experience (experienced observers versus novice observers). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices using cleansed 3D (65%; 95%CI 57–73%) compared with uncleansed 2D (51%; 95%CI 44–59%). For experienced observers there was no significant difference. Mean per-patient sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices as well: respectively 75% (95%CI 70–80%) versus 64% (95%CI 59–70%). For experienced observers there was no statistically significant difference. Specificity for both novices and experienced observers was not significantly different. For novices primary electronically cleansed 3D is better for polyp detection than primary uncleansed 2D.

Formative evaluation of standardized training for CT colonographic image interpretation by novice readers

PURPOSE

To introduce an educational intervention-specifically, a specialized training course-and perform a formative evaluation of the effect of the intervention on novice reader interpretation of computed tomography (CT) colonographic data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was institutional review board approved. Ten normal and 50 abnormal cases, those of 60 patients with 93 polyps-61 polyps 6-9 mm in diameter and 32 polyps 10 mm or larger-were selected from a previously published trial. Seven novice readers underwent initial training that consisted of a 1-day course, reading assignments, a self-study computer module (with 61 limited data sets), observation of an expert interpreting three cases, and full interpretation of 10 cases with unblinding after each case. After training, the observers independently interpreted 60 cases by means of primary two-dimensional reading with unblinding after each case. For each case, the reading time and the location and maximal diameter of the polyp(s) were recorded. A t test was used to evaluate the observers' improvements, and empirical receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed.

RESULTS

By-patient sensitivities and specificities were determined for each observer. The lowest by-patient sensitivity at the 6 mm or larger polyp threshold was 86%, with 90% specificity. Four observers had 100% by-patient sensitivity at the 10 mm or larger polyp threshold, with 82%-97% specificity. For polyps 10 mm or larger, mean sensitivity and specificity were 98% and 92%, respectively. For the last 20 cases, the average interpretation time per case was 25 minutes. The range of areas under the ROC curve across observers was low: 0.86-0.95.

CONCLUSION

In the described polyp-enriched cohort, novice CT colonographic data readers achieved high sensitivity and good specificity at formative evaluation of a comprehensive training program. Use of a similar comprehensive training method might reduce interreader variability in interpretation accuracy and be useful for reader certification.

Current role and future potential of computed tomographic colonography for colorectal polyp detection and colon cancer screening-incidental findings

AIM

In this retrospective study, we assess the current role and future potential of computed tomographic (CT) colonography as a viable alternative imaging tool for colorectal polyp detection and colon cancer screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients have undergone virtual colonographic examinations with 64-multidetector-row spiral CT (MDCT), and three-dimensional images were created on a separate workstation that had the appropriate software for image processing. Images were reviewed by a radiologist, and anatomic division of the entire colon was used to locate the suspected lesions. Characteristics of bowel preparation, intracolonic, extracolonic, and incidental findings were noted, too.

RESULTS

Ten of the 20 patients (50%) had a positive CT colonography for polypoid lesions. Those lesions were distributed into the cecum (4 cases), colon ascendens (2 cases), colon descendens (2 cases), and sigma (2 cases). In 80%, bowel preparation was good, in 15% moderate, and in 5% inadequate. Furthermore, CT scan noted in total 20 incidental findings.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography is currently a viable alternative imaging tool for colorectal polyp detection. There are several clinical situations where CT colonography may play an important role in patient care. These include for example evaluation of the colon after an incomplete conventional colonoscopic examination or evaluation in patients who are clinically unfit to undergo conventional colonoscopy. At centers where there is expertise in data acquisition and interpretation, CT colonography is being offered as a routine imaging examination. With continued improvements in bowel preparation, colonic distention, and CT colonography interpretation by sufficient numbers of radiologists this technology might have a substantial influence on colon cancer screening.

Diagnostic performance of CT colonography for the detection of colorectal polyps

Objective

To investigate the diagnostic value of CT colonography for the detection of colorectal polyps.

Materials and Methods

From December 2004 to December 2005, 399 patients underwent CT colonography and follow-up conventional colonoscopy. We excluded cases of advanced colorectal cancer. We retrospectively analyzed the CT colonography findings and follow-up conventional colonoscopy findings of 113 patients who had polyps more than 6 mm in diameter. Radiologists using 3D and 2D computer generated displays interpreted the CT colonography images. The colonoscopists were aware of the CT colonography findings before the procedure.

Results

CT colonography detected 132 polyps in 107 of the 113 patients and conventional colonoscopy detected 114 colorectal polyps more than 6 mm in diameter in 87 of the 113 patients. The sensitivity of CT colonography analyzed per polyp was 91% (41/45) for polyps more than 10 mm in diameter and 89% (101/114) for polyps more than 6 mm in diameter. Thirteen polyps were missed by CT colonography and were detected on follow-up conventional colonoscopy.

Conclusion

CT colonography is a sensitive diagnostic tool for the detection of colorectal polyps and adequate bowel preparation, optimal bowel distention and clinical experience are needed to reduce the rate of missing appropriate lesions.

Critical analysis of the performance of double-contrast barium enema for detecting colorectal polyps > or = 6 mm in the era of CT colonography

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing the performance of double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) with CT colonography (CTC) for the detection of colorectal polyps > or = 6 mm using endoscopy as the gold standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective DCBE and CTC studies were identified. Percentages of polyps and of patients with polyps > or = 10 mm and 6-9 mm were abstracted. The performance of DCBE versus CTC was determined by separately evaluating each technique's performance versus that of endoscopy, and contrasting the techniques. The I-squared statistic and Fisher's exact test were used for heterogeneity, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel and the Kruskal-Wallis tests for correlation, and the A(z) test for comparing pooled weighted estimates of performance.

RESULTS

Eleven studies of DCBE (5,995 patients, 1,548 polyps) and 30 studies of CTC (6,573 patients, 2,348 polyps) fulfilled inclusion criteria. For polyps > or = 10 mm, a 0.121-per-patient sensitivity difference favored CTC (p < 0.0001; DCBE, 0.702 [95% CI, 0.687-0.715]; CTC, 0.823 [0.809-0.836]). For polyps > or = 10 mm, a 0.031-per-polyp sensitivity difference favored CTC (p < 0.0001; DCBE, 0.715 [0.703-0.726]; CTC, 0.746 [0.735-0.757]). For polyps > or = 10 mm, a specificity difference of 0.104 favored CTC (p = 0.001; DCBE, 0.850 [0.847-0.855]; CTC, 0.954 [0.952-0.955]). DCBE was also significantly less sensitive for 6- to 9-mm polyps (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

DCBE has statistically lower sensitivity and specificity than CTC for detecting colorectal polyps > or = 6 mm.

Computer-aided detection for CT colonography: incremental benefit of observer training

The purpose of this study was to investigate the incremental effect of focused training on observer performance when using computer-assisted detection (CAD) software to interpret CT colonography (CTC). Six radiologists who were relatively inexperienced with CTC interpretation underwent 1 day of focused training before reading 20 patient datasets with the assistance of CAD software (ColonCAR 1.3, Medicsight PLC). Sensitivity, specificity and interpretation times were determined and compared with previous performance when reading the same datasets but without the benefit of focused training, using the binomial exact test and Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Per-polyp sensitivity improved after training by 18% overall (95% confidence interval (CI): 14-24%, p<0.001) and was greatest for polyps of 6-9 mm (26%, 95% CI: 18-34%, p<0.001). Absolute sensitivity was 23% (9-36%), 51% (33-71%) and 74% (44-100%) for polyps of <or=5 mm, 6-9 mm and >or=10 mm, respectively. Specificity fell significantly after focused training (median of 5.5 false positives per 20 datasets (interquartile range (IQR): 4-6) post-training vs median of 2.5 (IQR: 1-5) pre-training, p = 0.03). Interpretation time also increased significantly after training (from a median of 9.3 min (IQR: 9.3-14.5 min) to a median of 17.1 min (IQR: 15.4-19.4 min), p = 0.03). In conclusion, one day of training increases observer polyp sensitivity when using CAD for CTC at the expense of increased reporting time and reduction in specificity.

European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography

Rapid clinical dissemination of CT colonography (CTC) is occurring in parallel with continued research into technique optimisation and diagnostic performance. A need exists therefore for current guidance as to basic prerequisites for effective clinical implementation. A questionnaire detailing CTC technique, analysis, training and clinical implementation was developed by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) CTC committee and circulated to all faculty members of previous ESGAR "hands-on" CTC training courses. Responses were collated and a consensus statement produced. Of 27 invited to participate, 24 responded. Reasonable consensus was reached on bowel preparation, colonic distension, patient positioning, use of IV contrast and optimal scan parameters. Both primary 2D and primary 3D analysis were advocated equally, with some evidence that more experienced readers prefer primary 2D. Training was universally recommended, although there was no consensus regarding minimum requirements. CTC was thought superior to barium enema, although recommended for screening only in the presence of validated local experience. There was consensus that polyps 4 mm or less could be ignored assuming agreement from local gastroenterological colleagues. There is increasing consensus amongst European experts as to the current best practice in CTC.

Virtual colonoscopy training and accreditation: a national survey of radiologist experience and attitudes in the UK

AIM

Expert consensus recommends directed training and possibly in the future, formal accreditation before independent virtual colonoscopy (VC) reporting. We surveyed radiologists' experience of VC training, compared with barium enema, and assessed attitudes towards accreditation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to 78 consultant radiologists from 72 centres (65 National Health Service hospitals; seven independent primary screening centres) offering a VC service.

RESULTS

Fifty-four (69%) eligible radiologists responded. They had interpreted 18,152 examinations (range 3-1500) in total versus 232,350 (13 times more) barium enemas. Twenty-two (41%) deemed their VC training as inadequate [including five (45%) of screening centre radiologists], and only 14 (26%) had attended a training workshop due to lack of availability (54%) or financial/study leave constraints (24%). Eleven (20%) radiologists routinely double-reported VC examinations versus 37 (69%) barium enemas, yet 21 (39%) considered requirements for VC training were greater than barium enema. Thirty-eight (70%) favoured accreditation beyond internal audit for VC versus 15(28%) for barium enema. Of these 38, seven (18%) favoured "one-off," and 18 (47%) periodic testing, with 16 (42%) favouring external audit alone or in combination with testing. Overall, 42 (78%) considered specific accreditation for reporting screening examinations appropriate and 45 (83%) respondents preferred a national radiological organization to regulate such a scheme.

CONCLUSION

There is wide variability in reporting experience and recommendations for VC training have not been widely adopted, in part due to limited access to dedicated workshops. UK radiologists are generally in favour of VC accreditation, governed by a national radiology organization.

Magnetic resonance colonography vs computed tomography colonography for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: an indirect comparison

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to use meta-regression techniques to compare the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) and magnetic resonance colonography (MRC), compared with conventional colonoscopy for patients presenting with colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHOD

Quantitative meta-analysis was performed using prospective studies reporting comparative data between CTC and MRC individually to conventional colonoscopy. Study quality was assessed and sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were calculated. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves and sensitivity analysis were utilized. Meta-regression was used to indirectly compare the two modalities following adjustment for patient and study characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall sensitivity and specificity for CTC (0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.99; 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00 respectively) and MRC (0.91, 95% CI 0.79-0.97; 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99 respectively) for the detection of CRC was similar. Meta-regression analysis showed no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy of both modalities (beta=-0.64, P=0.37 and 95% CI of 0.12-2.39). Both tests showed high area under the SROC curve (CTC=0.99; MRC=0.98), with high DORs (CTC=1461.90, 95% CI 544.89-3922.30; MRC=576.41, 95% CI 135.00-2448.56). Factors that enhanced the overall accuracy of MRC were the use intravenous contrast, faecal tagging and exclusion of low-quality studies. No factors improved diagnostic accuracy from CTC except studies with more than 100 patients (AUC=1.00, DOR=2938.35, 95%CI 701.84-12 302.91).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that CTC and MRC have similar diagnostic accuracy for detecting CRC. Study quality, size and intravenous/intra-luminal contrast agents affect diagnostic accuracies. For an exact comparison to be made, studies evaluating CTC, MRC and colonoscopy in the same patient cohort would be necessary.

MR imaging of the colon: "technique, indications, results and limitations"

In the last few years virtual colonography using MR imaging has shown a proceeding development regarding detection and quantification of colorectal pathologies. Dark-lumen MR colonography (MRC) has been a leading tool for the diagnosis of the entire colon and their pathologies. This review article describes some of the underlying techniques of MRC concerning data acquisition, the need for intravenously applied paramagnetic contrast agent, as well as indications, results and limitations of MRC for the detection of colorectal pathologies. In addition, new techniques to improve patient acceptance are discussed.

CT colonography: screening in individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer

The use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as a screening test for colorectal cancer is being advocated with growing enthusiasm by physicians and the public as stronger evidence of its validity and limited invasiveness emerges from the literature. Because the approach to surveillance of colorectal cancer depends on an individual's degree of risk category, which depends on familial and personal histories, it seems logical that the diagnostic performance and cost efficacy of screening CTC may differ according to the characteristics of the target population. Although CTC seems a valid option in low- to average-risk populations, pending a careful assessment of its cost and estimates of its cost efficacy, there are some important issues that should be addressed when it comes to considering its use in high-risk patients. The expected larger number of induced colonoscopies and higher false-positive rates are likely to have a great influence on CTC costs, but if its implementation causes a dramatic increase in the number of patients willing to undergo screening, thanks to its acceptability, then the cost efficacy ratio may ultimately become competitive with all other screening strategies for colorectal cancer. We strongly feel that large and well-conducted trials are needed to clarify the role of CTC in screening patients at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Virtual colonoscopy--an overview

Virtual colonoscopy is emerging as a technique for the detection of tumor lesions in the colon. Being a patient-friendly examination, virtual colonoscopy could play an important role in colorectal cancer screening. This article reviews the current state of the art of virtual colonoscopy with future developments and issues to be resolved.

Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training

This study investigated the variability in baseline computed tomography colonography (CTC) performance using untrained readers by documenting sources of error to guide future training requirements. Twenty CTC endoscopically validated data sets containing 32 polyps were consensus read by three unblinded radiologists experienced in CTC, creating a reference standard. Six readers without prior CTC training [four residents and two board-certified subspecialty gastrointestinal (GI) radiologists] read the 20 cases. Readers drew a region of interest (ROI) around every area they considered a potential colonic lesion, even if subsequently dismissed, before creating a final report. Using this final report, reader ROIs were classified as true positive detections, true negatives correctly dismissed, true detections incorrectly dismissed (i.e., classification error), or perceptual errors. Detection of polyps 1-5 mm, 6-9 mm, and > or =10 mm ranged from 7.1% to 28.6%, 16.7% to 41.7%, and 16.7% to 83.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference between polyp detection or false positives for the GI radiologists compared with residents (p=0.67, p=0.4 respectively). Most missed polyps were due to failure of detection rather than characterization (range 82-95%). Untrained reader performance is variable but generally poor. Most missed polyps are due perceptual error rather than characterization, suggesting basic training should focus heavily on lesion detection.

Virtual colonoscopy in the detection of colonic polyps and neoplasms

First introduced in 1994, CT colonography (Virtual colonoscopy) has emerged as an accurate, non-invasive test that will likely play a future role in colorectal cancer screening. Over the past 3 years, there have been dramatic improvements in both hardware and software technology relating to CT colonography resulting in shorter scan times, enhanced user-friendliness and improved performance statistics. Published results show the accuracy of CT colonography to be comparable to conventional colonoscopy for detection of polyps >6mm in size with few false-positives. While many of the technical aspects of CT colonography have now been standardised current interest focuses on the development of faecal tagging agents to avoid full bowel catharsis and the use of low dose multislice CT acquisition to reduce patient radiation exposure. This chapter will summarise the development of CT colonography to date, document its published performance in detection of colorectal polyps and cancers, and review its current and potential future uses.

Emerging technologies in colorectal cancer screening

CRC is a preventable disease through early detection, yet screening rates remain low and mortality rates remain high. The discomfort associated with the preparation and performance of some of the currently available screening modalities and the lack of public awareness about CRC and screening procedures likely account for low rates of screening. CT colonography and stool DNA testing are new promising screening technologies that are less invasive, accurate, and suitable for the public more than the current screening procedures. Before both tests can be promoted for population-based screening programs, several issues that have been detailed in this article must be addressed further, including technical improvements for improving accuracy, development of virtual preparation, test availability, patient and provider acceptability and cost-effectiveness for CTC, and identifying the optimal combination of molecular targets for stool DNA testing. The year 2005 will tell us if the ideal technology from the public health point of view was achieved. A skill-independent, anesthesia-free, self-propelling, self-navigating miniaturized endoscopic device that may move along the entire length of the colon may change the natural history of CRC. We should aim to achieve a new definition of CRC--a rare disease occurring in a subset of the population who has not been screened for the disease.

CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting

PURPOSE

To assess the methodologic quality of available data in published reports of computed tomographic (CT) colonography by performing systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The MEDLINE database was searched for colonography reports published between 1994 and 2003, without language restriction. The terms colonography, colography, CT colonoscopy, CT pneumocolon, virtual colonoscopy, and virtual endoscopy were used. Studies were selected if the focus was detection of colorectal polyps verified with within-subject reference colonoscopy by using key methodologic criteria based on information presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Virtual Colonoscopy (Boston, Mass). Two reviewers independently abstracted methodologic characteristics. Per-patient and per-polyp detection rates were extracted, and authors were contacted, when necessary. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity were calculated for different lesion size categories, and Forest plots were produced. Meta-analysis of paired sensitivity and specificity was conducted by using a hierarchical model that enabled estimation of summary receiver operating characteristic curves allowing for variation in diagnostic threshold, and the average operating point was calculated. Per-polyp sensitivity was also calculated.

RESULTS

Of 1398 studies considered for inclusion, 24 met our criteria. There were 4181 patients with a study prevalence of abnormality of 15%-72%. Meta-analysis of 2610 patients, 206 of whom had large polyps, showed high per-patient average sensitivity (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 73%, 98%) and specificity (97%; 95% CI: 95%, 99%) for colonography; sensitivity and specificity decreased to 86% (95% CI: 75%, 93%) and 86% (95% CI: 76%, 93%), respectively, when the threshold was lowered to include medium polyps. When polyps of all sizes were included, studies were too heterogeneous in sensitivity (range, 45%-97%) and specificity (range, 26%-97%) to allow meaningful meta-analysis. Of 150 cancers, 144 were detected (sensitivity, 95.9%; 95% CI: 91.4%, 98.5%). Data reporting was frequently incomplete, with no generally accepted format.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography seems sufficiently sensitive and specific in the detection of large and medium polyps; it is especially sensitive in the detection of symptomatic cancer. Studies are poorly reported, however, and the authors propose a minimum data set for study reporting.

Evaluation of contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography in detection of local recurrent colorectal cancer

AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity of contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography in detecting local recurrence of colorectal cancer.

METHODS: From January 2000 to December 2004, 434 patients after potentially curative resection for invasive colorectal cancer were followed up for a period ranging from 20 to 55 mo. Eighty of the four hundred and thirty-four patients showing strong clinical evidence for recurring colorectal cancer during the last follow-up were enrolled in this study. Each patient underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy on the same day. Any lesions, biopsies, identified during the colonoscopic examination, immediate complications and the duration of the procedure were recorded. The results of contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography were evaluated by comparing to those of colonoscopy, surgical finding, and clinical follow-up.

RESULTS: Contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 83% and an overall accuracy of 94% in detecting local recurrent colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION: Conventional colonoscopy and contrast-enhanced tomographic colonography can complement each other in detecting local recurrence of colorectal cancer.

Multi-detector CT-colonography in inflammatory bowel disease: prospective analysis of CT-findings to high-resolution video colonoscopy

AIM

Prospective analysis of multi-detector CT-colonography (MDCTC) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) compared to high-resolution video-endoscopy (HRVC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-one patients (mean age 49.6 years) with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis underwent MDCTC (Somatom Volume Zoom, Siemens, Erlangen; 1mm collimation, Pitch 8, 100 mAs, 120 kVp). HRVC was performed within 2 h after MDCTC. MDCTC was analyzed by two blinded readers. MDCTC-findings including bowel wall alterations and extraintestinal changes were compared to results of HRVC.

RESULTS

Over-all-sensitivity was 100% for endoluminal lesions with correct diagnosis of two cancers. Acute and chronic IBD were correctly identified by MDCTC in 63.6%, and 100%, respectively, with a specificity of 75%, and 100%. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of MDCTC for diagnosis of acute and chronic disease were best for chronic disease. Sensitivity was worst for acute ulcerative colitis and specificity was worst for acute Crohn's disease. Haustral loss was seen only in ulcerative colitis. Pseudopolyps and fistulae were findings exclusive to Crohn's disease. Particularly extraintestinal findings as increased vascularization and local lymphadenopathy correlated well with endoscopic definition of acute disease. Because of the possibly more vulnerable colonic wall in acute inflammatory bowel disease, the air inflation for MDCTC should be performed most carefully to avoid any risk of colonic perforation.

CONCLUSION

MDCTC may help to distinguish between patients with acute and chronic IBD. Especially extraintestinal complications, tumorous as well as pseudo-tumorous lesions can be detected with high sensitivity and specificity.

Screening of patients after colectomy: virtual colonography

BACKGROUND

Virtual colonography is a powerful new method of imaging the entire colon and is useful to assess polyps and diagnose colon cancer. We evaluated virtual colonography in the postoperative screening of patients who had colon cancer.

METHODS

Fifty-three patients were examined with virtual colonography 12 to 48 months postoperatively. Forty-four patients had received segmental colectomy with restoration of the gastrointestinal tract, and nine patients underwent abdominoperineal resection and permanent colostomy. After proper cleaning of the colon and distention with air, spiral computed tomographic examination of the abdomen with a slice thickness of 5 mm (table speed [TS] 10 mm, reconstruction interval [RI] 2.5 mm) was performed in the supine and prone positions (including intravenous contrast medium infusion). Images were transferred to a separate workstation (Philips Easy Vision) for postprocessing, three-dimensional rendering, and endoluminal viewing.

RESULTS

Eleven recurrences (16.41%) were identified in 10 patients by virtual colonography, but one recurrence was missed. Conventional colonoscopy was incomplete in six cases, and two patients with colostomy refused colonoscopy. In these eight cases (15%), virtual colonoscopy was completed without problems. A second tumor in one patient who had received abdominoperineal resection was demonstrated by virtual colonography, but conventional colonoscopy failed to demonstrate the lesion. Liver metastases were identified in only one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual colonography seems to provide a good alternative in the follow-up of patients after colectomy. The technique is effective in the diagnosis of locoregional recurrences and distant metastases and is well accepted by patients, and results are equal to those of the conventional colonoscopy.

CT colonography: where have we been and where are we going?

Over the past decade, computed tomographic (CT) colonography (also known as virtual colonoscopy) has been used to investigate the colon for colorectal neoplasia. Numerous clinical and technical advances have allowed CT colonography to advance slowly from a research tool to a viable option for colorectal cancer screening. However, substantial controversy remains among radiologists, gastroenterologists, and other clinicians with regard to the current role of CT colonography in clinical practice. On the one hand, all agree there is much excitement about a noninvasive imaging examination that can reliably depict clinically important colorectal lesions. However, this is tempered by results from several recent studies that show the sensitivity of CT colonography may not be as great when performed and the images interpreted by radiologists without expertise and training. The potential to miss important lesions exists; moreover, if polyps cannot be differentiated from folds and residual fecal matter, unnecessary colonoscopy will be performed. In this review, current issues will be discussed regarding colon cancer and the established and reimbursed strategies to screen for it and the past, current, and potential future role of CT colonography.

Multislice CT Colonography: Current Status and Limitations

CT colonography (CTC) is a promising method for colorectal cancer screening because it provides a full structural evaluation of the entire colon. It has a superior safety profile, a low rate of complications, and high patient acceptance. In addition, CTC offers the real possibility of eliminating the cathartic bowel preparation, one of the biggest obstacles to patient compliance with colorectal cancer screening. Results of CTC studies in recently published literature are extremely encouraging, demonstrating that this method of screening can detect lesions equal to or larger than 8 mm with few false-positive findings.

Screening and surveillance of colorectal cancer

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, it is preventable. Screening modalities include fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, double-contrast barium enema, and colonoscopy. Colonoscopy allows effective detection and removal of precursor adenomatous polyps and is the dominant CRC screening modality. Emerging technologies include CT and MR colonography and fecal DNA tests. Effective and cost-effective surveillance after polypectomy and curative CRC resection requires balancing the protective effect of polypectomy while maximizing intervals between examinations; thus, estimation of the risk of recurrence determines the intensity of surveillance for individual patients.

False-negative results at multi-detector row CT colonography: multivariate analysis of causes for missed lesions

PURPOSE

To determine causes of false-negative results at multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) colonography and determine presumptive causes with logistic regression analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. The study included 394 colonic segments in 31 men and 25 women at high risk for colorectal cancer (mean age +/- standard deviation, 60.2 years +/- 9.3 for men and 56.8 years +/- 13.3 for women). Multi-detector row CT colonography and colonoscopy (reference standard) were performed in a blinded manner, and the results were compared. CT colonographic findings were interpreted in consensus by two readers using a primary two-dimensional with three-dimensional problem-solving approach. Adequacy of colonic preparation and distention was recorded. Sensitivity and specificity were obtained with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Lesions missed at CT colonography were retrospectively reassessed to identify why they were missed, and, if the causes were not apparent, logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the presumptive causes.

RESULTS

Colonic preparation and distention were optimal in 17 patients (30%) but suboptimal in 37 (66%) and poor enough to make the results nondiagnostic in two (4%). Twenty-nine of 63 lesions were missed at CT colonography. When all flat, sessile, and pedunculated lesions (n = 63) were included, sensitivities were 75% (nine of 12; 95% CI: 48%, 100%) for lesions 10 mm or larger and 79% (19 of 24; 95% CI: 65%, 93%) for those 6 mm or larger. When only sessile and pedunculated lesions (n = 60) were included, corresponding sensitivities were 100% (nine of nine; 73%, 100%) and 90% (19 of 21; 78%, 100%), respectively. All three missed lesions larger than 10 mm were flat, and all three flat lesions were missed. Two 3-mm high lesions, including one invasive adenocarcinoma, were misinterpreted as feces at blinded image review; one 1-mm high tubular adenoma with adenocarcinoma foci could not be visualized even in retrospect. Sessile or pedunculated polyps 5 mm or smaller were significantly more likely to be missed than those 6 mm or larger (adjusted odds ratio, 11.6; P = .027).

CONCLUSION

Aside from inadequate bowel preparation and/or distention, flat lesions and small polyps are the two main causes for missed lesions at multi-detector row CT colonography.

Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Multiple trials have documented wide interobserver variability between radiologists interpreting computed tomography colonography (CTC) exams. We sought to determine if nonradiologists could learn to interpret intraluminal findings at CTC with a high degree of sensitivity to determine if they could play a role as second readers in interpreting CTC exams.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven nonradiologists (five medical students, two radiologic technologists) undertook self-directed CTC training using a teaching file of 50 cases; thereafter, each reader blindly interpreted 50 cases with colonoscopic correlation (30 positive, 20 negative). Results were compared with a previously studied cohort of radiologists. The two technologists additionally repeated the exam after 6 weeks of clinical experience.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of nonradiologists for small (5-9 mm) polyps, large (>9 mm) lesions, and cancers was similar to that of radiologists (0.45 versus 0.63, 0.74 versus 0.71, and 0.80 versus 0.88, respectively). After 6 weeks of clinical experience as second readers, the accuracy of one technologist significantly improved (from 74% to 90%, P = .008), whereas accuracy of the other tended toward improvement (from 74% to 86%%, P = .25). Nonradiologists detected, on average, 6/36 additional polyps (17%) missed by any radiologist, and the sensitivity of 5/7 nonradiologists was significantly greater than at least one of the radiologists (P = .05).

CONCLUSION

Nonradiologists can perform similarly to radiologists in interpreting intraluminal findings at CTC, with nonradiologist performance improving even after experience with more than 100 cases. Skilled nonradiologists may play a vital role as a second reader of intraluminal findings or by performing quality control of examinations before patient dismissal.