Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy)

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

CT-colonography in the follow-up of acute diverticulitis: patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess CT-colonography (CTC) in the follow-up of diverticulitis regarding patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy for diverticular disease, adenomas and cancer, with colonoscopy as a reference standard.

METHODS

A prospective comparative study where half of the patients underwent colonoscopy first, followed immediately by CTC. The other half had the examinations in the reverse order. Patient experiences and findings were registered after every examination, blinded to the examiner.

RESULTS

Of a total of 110 consecutive patients, 108 were included in the study, with a median age of 56 years (range 27-84). The success rate was 91% for colonoscopy and 86% for CTC. Examination time was 25 min for both methods. The mean time for CTC evaluation was 20 min. Eighty-three per cent of the patients received sedation during colonoscopy. Despite this, patients experienced colonoscopy as more painful (p < 0.001) and uncomfortable (p < 0.001). Diverticulosis and polyps were detected in 94% and 20% with colonoscopy and in 94% and 29% with CTC, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for CTC in the detection of diverticulosis was 99% and 67%, with a good agreement (κ = 0.71). Regarding detection of polyps, the sensitivity and specificity were 47% and 75%, with a poor agreement (κ = 0.17). No cancer was found.

CONCLUSION

CTC was less painful and unpleasant and can be used for colonic investigation in the follow-up of diverticulitis. CTC detected diverticulosis with good accuracy while the detection accuracy of small polyps was poor. CTC is a viable alternative, especially in case of incomplete colonoscopy or in a situation with limited colonoscopy resources.

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.

A virtual reality environment for patient data visualization and endoscopic surgical planning

Visualizing patient data in a three-dimensional (3D) representation can be an effective surgical planning tool.As medical imaging technologies improve with faster and higher resolution scans, the use of virtual reality for interacting with medical images adds another level of realism to a 3D representation. The software framework presented in this paper is designed to load and display any DICOM/PACS-compatible 3D image data for visualization and interaction in an immersive virtual environment. In "examiner" mode, the surgeon can interact with a 3D virtual model of the patient by using an intuitive set of controls designed to allow slicing, coloring,and windowing of the image to show different tissue densities and enhance important structures. In the simulated"endoscopic camera" mode, the surgeon can see through the point of view of a virtual endoscopic camera to navigate inside the patient. These tools allow the surgeon to perform virtual endoscopy on any suitable structure.The software is highly scalable, as it can be used on a single desktop computer to a cluster of computers in an immersive multiprojection virtual environment. By wearing a pair of stereo glasses, a surgeon becomes immersed within the model itself, thus providing a sense of realism, as if the surgeon is "inside" the patient.

Virtual colonoscopy in stenosing colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Between 5 and 10% of the patients undergoing a colonoscopy cannot have a complete procedure mainly due to stenosing neoplastic lesion of rectum or distal colon. Nevertheless the elective surgical treatment concerning the stenosis is to be performed after the pre-operative assessment of the colonic segments upstream the cancer. The aim of this study is to illustrate our experience with the Computed Tomographic Colonography (CTC) for the pre-operative assessment of the entire colon in the patients with stenosing colorectal cancers.

METHODS

From January 2005 till March 2009, we observed and treated surgically 43 patients with stenosing colorectal neoplastic lesions. All patients did not tolerate the pre-operative colonoscopy. For this reason they underwent a pre-operative CTC in order to have a complete assessment of the entire colon. All patients underwent a follow-up colonoscopy 3 months after the surgical treatment. The CTC results were compared with both macroscopic examination of the specimen and the follow-up coloscopy.

RESULTS

The pre-operative CTC showed four synchronous lesions in four patients (9.3% of the cases). The macroscopic examination of the specimen revealed three small sessile polyps (3-4 mm in diameter) missed in the pre-operative assessment near the stenosing colorectal cancer. The follow-up colonoscopy showed four additional sessile polyps with a diameter between 3-11 mm in three patients. Our experience shows that CTC has a sensitivity of 83,7%.

CONCLUSION

In patients with stenosing colonic lesions, CTC allows to assess the entire colon pre-operatively avoiding the need of an intraoperative colonoscopy. More synchronous lesions are detected and treated at the time of the elective surgery for the stenosing cancer avoiding further surgery later on.

Electronic colon-cleansing for CT colonography: diagnostic performance

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether an electronic-colonic-cleansing (ECC) algorithm is beneficial for the diagnostic performance compared to a CT colonography (CTC) evaluation without electronic cleansing in tagged datasets.

METHODS

Two blinded readers evaluated CTC datasets from 79 patients with 153 colorectal polyps confirmed by optical colonoscopy. Cases were read in a randomized order with and without the use of electronic colon-cleansing software. Per-polyp sensitivity, per-polyp/per-patient specificity and reading times (with and without ECC) have been calculated and reported.

RESULTS

Per-polyp sensitivity for polyps >6 mm without using ECC was 60.4% (Reader 1: 59.7%, Reader 2: 61.1%), while polyps >10 mm were detected with a sensitivity of 58.3% (Reader 1: 66.7%, Reader 2: 50%). On electronically cleansed datasets, the sensitivity was 73.6% (Reader 1: 76.4%; Reader 2: 70.8%) for polyps >6 mm and 83.3% (Reader 1: 83.3%; Reader 2: 83.3%), respectively. Per-patient specificity was 75% without using cleansing (Reader 1: 68%, Reader 2: 82%) and 81.5% using ECC (Reader 1: 86%, Reader 2: 77%).

CONCLUSION

Reading CTC cases using ECC software improves sensitivity in detecting clinically relevant colorectal polyps.

Current status and future prospects of the clinical application of computed tomography colonography

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a recently developed technique for colonic and rectal diseases. After using the multi-slice spiral CT (MSCT) to rapidly scan the aerated colon and rectum, the original images are post-processed using advanced imaging software to acquire a series of reconstruction images. Possessing the advantages of simpleness, rapidness, safety and noninvasiveness, CTC is more easily accepted by patients. As MSCT technology and computed software are constantly being improved, the image quality and diagnostic reliability of CTC have been enhanced greatly. CTC not only has high sensitivity and specificity for detecting polyps over one centimeter but also shows clear advantage in accurate preoperative diagnosis and staging of colorectal carcinoma.

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.

Virtual colonoscopy vs conventional colonoscopy in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer--a prospective trial of 150 patients

OBJECTIVE

Virtual colonoscopy (VC)/CT colonography has advantages over the well-documented limitations of colonoscopy/barium enema. This prospective blinded investigative comparison trial aimed to evaluate the ability of VC to assess the large bowel, compared to conventional colonoscopy (CC), in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHOD

We studied 150 patients (73 males, mean age 60.9 years) at high risk of CRC. Following bowel preparation, VC was undertaken using colonic insufflation and 2D-spiral CT acquisition. Two radiologists reported the images and a consensual agreement reached. Direct comparison was made with CC (performed later the same day). Interobserver agreement was calculated using the Kappa method. Postal questionnaires sought patient preference.

RESULTS

Virtual colonoscopy visualized the caecum in all cases. Five (3.33%) VCs were classified as inadequate owing to poor distension/faecal residue. CC completion rate was 86%. Ultimately, 44 patients had normal findings, 44 had diverticular disease, 11 had inflammatory bowel disease, 18 had cancers, and 33 patients had 42 polyps. VC identified 19 cancers--a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 99.2% respectively. For detecting polyps > 10 mm, VC had a sensitivity and specificity (per patient) of 91% and 99.2% respectively. VC identified four polyps proximal to stenosing carcinomas and extracolonic malignancies in nine patients (6%). No procedural complications occurred with either investigation. A Kappa score achieved for interobserver agreement was 0.777.

CONCLUSION

Virtual colonoscopy is an effective and safe method for evaluating the bowel and was the investigation of choice amongst patients surveyed. VC provided information additional to CC on both proximal and extracolonic pathology. VC may become the diagnostic procedure of choice for symptomatic patients at high risk of CRC, with CC being reserved for therapeutic intervention, or where a tissue diagnosis is required.

CT colonography can be an adjunct to optical colonoscopy in CRC screening

CT colonography or virtual colonoscopy is a fairly new modality that has the potential to play a significant role in screening for colon cancer. CT colonography is an attractive option for two specific reasons. First, it is non-invasive and, second, it obviates the need for sedation. It thus overcomes the two major drawbacks of optical colonoscopy. CT colonography cannot be a stand-alone technique for colorectal cancer screening because, unlike conventional colonoscopy, it does not possess a therapeutic option or a definite diagnostic capability. However, CT colonography can be a cost-effective complement to traditional colonoscopy if it is reasonably priced and if appropriate cut-off levels (>6 mm polyp) are used to increase its sensitivity.

A virtual reality environment for patient data visualization and endoscopic surgical planning

Visualizing patient data in a three-dimensional (3D) representation can be an effective surgical planning tool.As medical imaging technologies improve with faster and higher resolution scans, the use of virtual reality for interacting with medical images adds another level of realism to a 3D representation. The software framework presented in this paper is designed to load and display any DICOM/PACS-compatible 3D image data for visualization and interaction in an immersive virtual environment. In "examiner" mode, the surgeon can interact with a 3D virtual model of the patient by using an intuitive set of controls designed to allow slicing, coloring,and windowing of the image to show different tissue densities and enhance important structures. In the simulated"endoscopic camera" mode, the surgeon can see through the point of view of a virtual endoscopic camera to navigate inside the patient. These tools allow the surgeon to perform virtual endoscopy on any suitable structure.The software is highly scalable, as it can be used on a single desktop computer to a cluster of computers in an immersive multiprojection virtual environment. By wearing a pair of stereo glasses, a surgeon becomes immersed within the model itself, thus providing a sense of realism, as if the surgeon is "inside" the patient.

Virtual dissection CT colonography: evaluation of learning curves and reading times with and without computer-aided detection

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate the learning curves and reading times of inexperienced readers who used the virtual dissection reading method for retrospective computed tomographic (CT) colonography data sets, with and without concurrent computer-aided detection (CAD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An Institutional Review Board approved this study; informed consent was waived. Four radiologists without experience in CT colonography evaluated 100 optical colonoscopy-proved data sets of 100 patients (49 men, 51 women; mean age, 59 years +/- 13 [standard deviation]; range, 21-85 years) by using the virtual dissection reading method. Two readers used concurrent CAD. Data sets were read during five consecutive 1-day sessions (20 data sets per session). Polyp detection and false-positive rates, receiver operating characteristics (ROCs), and reading times were calculated for individual, CAD group, and non-CAD group readings. Diagnostic values were compared by calculating the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the relative risk. Areas under ROC curves (AUCs) (Hanley and McNeil for paired analysis and z statistics for unpaired analysis) and reading times (Wilcoxon signed rank test) were compared across the sessions, within each session and for the whole study.

RESULTS

The range of detection rates was 79 of 111 (.71 [95% CI: .61, .79]) to 91 of 111 (.82 [95% CI: .73, .88]). The range of false-positive rates was 17 of 111 (.15 [95% CI: .09, .23]) to 22 of 111 (.20 [95% CI: .12, .28]). All readers' AUCs rose from session 1 to session 4; this rise was significant (P < .05) for the non-CAD group. Only during session 1 was the CAD group AUC (.83) higher than the non-CAD group AUC (.54) (P < .05). Comparison of CAD and non-CAD reading times showed no significant difference for the whole study or during each session (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The virtual dissection reading technique allows short learning curves, which may be improved by the concurrent use of CAD, without significant effect on average reading time.

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.

Polyp measurement reliability, accuracy, and discrepancy: optical colonoscopy versus CT colonography with pig colonic specimens

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate the reliability and accuracy of optical colonoscopy and computed tomographic (CT) colonography in polyp measurement, by using direct measurement as the reference standard, and to understand the basis for measurement discrepancy between both modalities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-six simulated polyps that ranged from 3 to 15 mm were constructed by using pig colons obtained from an abattoir. Approval of the animal care and use committee for the study was not required. CT colonographic measurement was performed by two independent radiologists by using two-dimensional (2D) optimized multiplanar reformatted planes and three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal views. Optical colonoscopic measurement was performed by two independent gastroenterologists by using open biopsy forceps. Interobserver agreement, measurement error, measurement discrepancy defined as the result of subtracting the optical colonoscopic measurement from the CT colonographic measurement, and false-mismatch (ie, designation of matched polyps as mismatched between both modalities) rates according to different matching criteria were analyzed.

RESULTS

Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.879 (95% confidence interval: 0.780, 0.930) for optical colonoscopy, 0.979 (95% confidence interval: 0.956, 0.989) for 2D CT colonography, and 0.985 (95% confidence interval: 0.976, 0.990) for 3D CT colonography. The mean standardized polyp size +/- standard deviation for each observer was 76.3% +/- 14.7 and 85.3% +/- 18.8 for optical colonoscopy, 104.6% +/- 11.6 and 101.6% +/- 10.1 for 2D CT colonography, and 114% +/- 12.4 and 113.4% +/- 13.2 for 3D CT colonography. These values indicated that there was a statistically significant difference among the methods (P<.001). Measurement discrepancy was not proportional to polyp size. A percentage-of-error criterion showed increasing false-mismatch rates with decreasing polyp size, whereas a fixed margin-of-error criterion resulted in more uniform false-mismatch rates across polyp size.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography is more reliable and accurate than optical colonoscopy for polyp measurement. A fixed margin-of-error criterion is better than a percentage-of-error criterion for polyp matching between CT colonography and optical colonoscopy with open biopsy forceps.

Meta-analysis comparing CT colonography, air contrast barium enema, and colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Published studies have reported a wide range of sensitivities and specificities for computed tomographic (CT) colonography for polyp detection, generating controversy regarding its diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of published studies comparing the accuracies of CT colonography and colonoscopy for polyp detection was performed. The pooled per-patient sensitivities and specificities were calculated at various thresholds for polyp size. Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were also constructed.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were included in the meta-analysis of CT colonography. The pooled per-patient sensitivity of CT colonography was higher for polyps greater than 10 mm (0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.88) compared with polyps 6 to 10 mm (0.63, 95% CI, 0.52-0.75) and polyps 0 to 5 mm (0.56, 95% CI, 0.42-0.70). Similarly, the exact area under the sROC curve (area +/- standard error) was higher using a threshold greater than 10 mm (0.898 +/- 0.063) compared with thresholds of greater than 5 mm and any size (0.884 +/- 0.033 and 0.822 +/- 0.059, respectively). There were no significant differences in the diagnostic characteristics of 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional CT colonography. At a threshold greater than 5 mm, the exact area under the sROC curve was significantly higher for endoscopic colonoscopy compared with CT colonography (0.998 +/- 0.006 vs 0.884 +/- 0.033, P < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

CT colonography has a reasonable sensitivity and specificity for detecting large polyps but was less accurate than endoscopic colonoscopy for smaller polyps. Thus, CT colonography may not be a reasonable alternative in situations in which a small polyp may be clinically relevant.

CT colonography in a Korean population with a high residue diet: Comparison between wet and dry preparations

AIM

To compare wet and dry preparation methods for computed tomography colonography (CTC) in terms of preparation quality, interpretation time, and diagnostic performance for polyp detection in a population with a high residue diet.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-six patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 (n=24) received a wet preparation of 4l polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution, and group 2 (n=62) received a dry preparation of phosphor-soda. Abnormal findings, including polyps, and the time required to interpret the CTC images in both groups were documented by a radiologist. CTC findings were compared to those of colonoscopy as a reference standard. Two radiologists evaluated the quality of CTC with regard to residual fluid, faeces, and colonic distension using a four-point scale in consensus. Statistical differences for residual fluid, faeces, distensibility on CTC, and interpretation time between the two groups were analysed. The diagnostic performance of CTC in both groups was also compared.

RESULTS

One-hundred and ninety polyps in 70 patients were identified using colonoscopy. Regarding the quality of images produced the wet preparation was significantly better than the dry preparation (p<0.05). The average interpretation time was significantly shorter for the wet group (11.7 min) than the dry group (16.4 min) (p<0.05). For per-patient analysis, the positive predictive value (PPV) was significantly better for the wet (100%) than the dry group (79.6%; p=0.025). Sensitivities and PPV for >or=10 mm polyps were comparable between two groups (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

In a population with a high-residue diet, CTC with wet preparation can be interpreted in a time-efficient manner and is comparable with CTC with dry preparation.

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.

Combined PET/CT colonography: is this the way forward?

Combined whole body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) examination may be beneficial for staging in patients with colorectal cancer

Computed tomography colonography: current issues

OBJECTIVE

Direct and indirect evidence supports the concept of screening for adenomas and early stage colorectal cancer in reducing the incidence and disease-specific mortality. Controversy remains as to the appropriateness of and preferred methods for screening an asymptomatic population.

METHODS

Review of computed tomography (CT) colonography based on the literature and personal experience.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Current discrepancies in the data on accuracy and patient acceptance of CT colonography reflect differences in the performance and evaluation of this examination. Before CT colonography can be implemented in colorectal cancer screening, factors that cause this variability must be elucidated. Studies in which high-resolution scanning, three-dimensional review methods and an enhanced colonoscopic reference are used achieve an accuracy that is similar to colonoscopy. At the same time the evidence that ultra-low radiation dose CT colonography is feasible is mounting, a development that dramatically reduces one of the largest obstacles for large-scale application of this technique.

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.

Colonography by computed tomography

Computed tomographic colonography ('virtual colonoscopy') has shown promising results in the detection of large (> or = 10 mm) polyps in populations with a high prevalence of polyps. Recent studies in low prevalence populations, however, show variable results in sensitivity, ranging from 55% to 94% for the detection of patients with polyps measuring 10 mm or longer. Therefore questions have been raised about computed tomographic colonography as a screening method, probably the most valuable use of this technique. This article describes possible causes of these remarkable differences as well as advances in computed tomographic colonography.

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.

The emerging role of virtual colonoscopy

A review of the current status of virtual colonoscopy is germane and topical. Clinicians need to be knowledgeable about this rapidly evolving and clinically relevant technology to understand the test benefits and limitations and to refer patients for this test appropriately. A critical review of the exponentially expanding literature on this subject is important. This article describes the imaging meth-ods, adjunctive techniques, and radiologic interpretation of CT colonography, and comprehensively and critically reviews the clinical data to help the clinician evaluate the current and potential applications of this technology.

Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance with CT colonography: current controversies and obstacles

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography has been advocated as an alternative colorectal screening method because studies in populations with a high prevalence of polyps have demonstrated that sensitivity for patients with large (> or =10 mm) polyps is generally high (approximately 90%). In three recent studies in low-prevalence populations, however, these values vary from 55% to 94%. Many questions have been raised as to the cause of this remarkable variability, which hampers the implementation of CT colonography in colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. We provide an overview of some potential causes and discuss the available, often indirect, evidence. In addition, several other obstacles that may influence implementation are discussed. Many differences between the study with high sensitivity (94%) and the two studies with low sensitivity (55% and 64%) exist: the primary method to review the data (two or three dimensional), bowel preparation (with or without oral contrast agents), study design (verification method and analysis of adenomas only), reader's experience, and scanning technique (single vs. multislice, thin vs. thick sections). Additional obstacles for implementation in prevention of colorectal cancer may be controversial results concerning patient acceptance, the large-scale use of ionizing radiation, difficulties in detecting flat adenomas, and extracolonic findings. Use of primary three-dimensional review methods, addition of oral contrast agents to bowel preparation, and endoscopic verification of false-positive results on CT colonography are speculated to have a positive influence on sensitivity. Future investigations should demonstrate the influence of these potential factors on sensitivity of CT colonography. Despite a growing body of evidence, it remains uncertain to what extent patient acceptance, radiation issues, flat lesions, and extracolonic findings will be a stumbling block to using CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening.

AGA future trends report: CT colonography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) was first described more than a decade ago. Recent advances in imaging hardware and software and results of clinical trials based on new methods for performing and interpreting images suggest that CTC may now be assessed as a method for colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

The Research Policy Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association assembled a task force to review the results of recent clinical trials and quantitative mathematical models pertaining to CTC. The goal of the task force was to assess the current knowledge about CTC and to evaluate the issues that will define its impact.

RESULTS

Limitations in evaluating the current state of CTC technology include a wide variation in results of clinical trials. There are as yet insufficient data on the use of CTC in routine clinical practice. Limitations in the use of quantitative mathematical models make predictions based on such models of limited value. The cancer risk and therefore clinical importance of small colorectal polyps detected by CTC and/or nonpolypoid neoplasia not detected by CTC remains largely unknown.

CONCLUSIONS

CTC is attractive as a colon imaging modality. It is therefore anticipated that CTC will have a significant impact on the practice of gastroenterology. However, the magnitude of the impact is currently unknown. Whether the ongoing implementation of CTC will increase or decrease the number of referrals for colonoscopy or shift the procedure from colorectal cancer screening to therapeutic interventions (e.g., polypectomy) is unknown at the present time. Multidisciplinary collaboration between gastroenterology and radiology to promote effective implementation and ongoing quality assurance will be important.

Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

To date, computed tomographic (CT) colonography has been compared with an imperfect test, colonoscopy, and has been mainly assessed in patients with positive screening test results or symptoms. Therefore, the available data may not apply to screening of patients with a personal or family history of colorectal polyps or cancer (increased risk). We prospectively investigated the ability of CT colonography to identify individuals with large (>or=10 mm) colorectal polyps in consecutive patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 249 consecutive patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer underwent CT colonography before colonoscopy. Two reviewers interpreted CT colonography examinations independently. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were determined after meticulous matching of CT colonography with colonoscopy. Unexplained large false-positive findings were verified with a second-look colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In total, 31 patients (12%) had 48 large polyps at colonoscopy. This included 8 patients with 8 large polyps that were overlooked initially and detected at the second-look colonoscopy. In 6 of 8 patients, the missed polyp was the only large lesion. With CT colonography, 84% of patients (26/31) with large polyp(s) were identified, paired for a specificity of 92% (200-201/218). Positive and negative predictive values were 59%-60% (26/43-44) and 98% (200-201/205-206), respectively. CT colonography detected 75%-77% (36-37/48) of large polyps, with 9 of the missed lesions being flat.

CONCLUSIONS

CT colonography and colonoscopy have a similar ability to identify individuals with large polyps in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. The large proportion of missed flat lesions warrants further study.

Postprocessing techniques of CT colonography in detection of colorectal carcinoma

AIM: To evaluate the value of postprocessing techniques of CT colonography, including multiplanar reformation (MPR), virtual colonoscopy (VC), shaded surface display (SSD) and Raysum, in detection of colorectal carcinomas.

METHODS: Sixty-four patients with colorectal carcinoma underwent volume scanning with spiral CT. MPR, VC, SSD and Raysum images were obtained by using four kinds of postprocessing techniques in workstation. The results were comparatively analyzed according to circumferential extent, lesion length and pathology pattern of colorectal carcinomas. All diagnoses were proved pathologically and surgically.

RESULTS: The accuracy of circumferential extent of colorectal carcinoma determined by MPR, VC, SSD and Raysum was 100.0%, 82.8%, 79.7% and 79.7%, respectively. There was a significant statistical difference between MPR and VC. The consistent rate of lesion length was 89.1%, 76.6%, 95.3% and 100.0%, respectively. There was a statistical difference between VC and SSD. The accuracy of discriminating pathology pattern was 81.3%, 92.2%, 71.9% and 71.9%, respectively. There was a statistical difference between VC and SSD. MPR could determine accurately the circumference of colorectal carcinoma, Raysum could determine the length of lesion more precisely than SSD, VC was helpful in discriminating pathology patterns.

CONCLUSION: MPR, VC, SSD and Raysum have advantage and disadvantage in detection of colorectal carcinoma, use of these methods in combination can disclose the lesion more accurately.

Characterization of lesions missed on interpretation of CT colonography using a 2D search method

OBJECTIVE

We examined potential factors that may cause false-negative results on CT colonography examinations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective and retrospective study, 500 asymptomatic patients at high risk for colorectal cancer underwent CT colonography and colonoscopy. Each CT data set was interpreted by two independent observers, who were unaware of endoscopic findings, using a method of searching through enlarged axial images to detect intraluminal lesions. Another observer identified and characterized lesions missed at prospective interpretation. Polyps were assessed for size, method of visualization, intrinsic and extrinsic features, and examination quality.

RESULTS

We found 116 polyps at least 5 mm in diameter, 54 (47%) of which were missed by at least one of the prospective observers. Polyps seen in only one position were missed more often than polyps seen in both supine and prone positions (84% vs 50%, p < 0.01). Polyps located in suboptimally prepared colonic segments or along a thickened colonic wall were more frequently missed (p = 0.02 and p = 0.05, respectively). Endoscopic morphology and irregular surface contour were associated with missed lesions of all sizes (p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively). Rounded intraluminal lesions were detected more often than other morphologies on CT (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Factors that influence the likelihood that a polyp may be missed at interpretation of CT colonography include being seen only in one position, having flat endoscopic or CT morphology, having surface irregularity, and being located in a poorly prepared segment or along a thickened colonic wall. Understanding these features should lead to improved polyp detection on CT colonography.

Computed Tomography Colonography

OBJECTIVE

: To determine the feasibility of a computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithm as the "first reader" in computed tomography colonography (CTC).

METHODS

: In phase 1 of a 2-part blind trial, we measured the performance of 3 radiologists reading 41 CTC studies without CAD. In phase 2, readers interpreted the same cases using a CAD list of 30 potential polyps.

RESULTS

: Unassisted readers detected, on average, 63% of polyps > or =10 mm in diameter. Using CAD, the sensitivity was 74% (not statistically different). Per-patient analysis showed a trend toward increased sensitivity for polyps > or =10 mm in diameter, from 73% to 90% with CAD (not significant) without decreasing specificity. Computer-aided detection significantly decreased interobserver variability (P = 0.017). Average time to detection of the first polyp decreased significantly with CAD, whereas total reading case reading time was unchanged.

CONCLUSION

: Computer-aided detection as a first reader in CTC was associated with similar per-polyp and per-patient detection sensitivity to unassisted reading. Computer-aided detection decreased interobserver variability and reduced the time required to detect the first polyp.

CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the effect of radiologist experience and increasing exposure to CT colonography on reader performance. Three radiologists of differing general experience (consultant, research fellow, trainee) independently analysed 100 CT colonographic datasets. Readers had no prior experience of CT colonography and received feedback and training after the first 50 cases from an independent experienced radiologist. Diagnostic performance and reporting times were compared for the first and second 50 datasets and compared with the results of a radiologist experienced in CT colonography. Before training only the consultant reader achieved statistical equivalence with the reference standard for detection of larger polyps. After training, detection rates ranged between 25 and 58% for larger polyps. Only the trainee significantly improved after training ( P=0.007), with performance of other readers unchanged or even worse. Reporting times following training were reduced significantly for the consultant and fellow ( P<0.001 and P=0.03, respectively), but increased for the trainee ( P<0.001). In comparison to the consultant reader, the odds of detection of larger polyps was 0.36 (CI 0.16, 0.82) for the fellow and 0.36 (CI 0.14, 0.91) for the trainee. There is considerable variation in the ability to report CT colonography. Prior experience in gastrointestinal radiology is a distinct advantage. Competence cannot be assumed even after directed training via a database of 50 cases.

Use of multidetector-row CT colonography for detection of colorectal neoplasia in patients referred via the Department of Health "2-Week-wait" initiative

AIM

Patients referred under the Department of Health 2-week wait initiative with symptoms of colorectal cancer frequently undergo whole-colon examination. We investigated the use of computed tomography (CT) colonography as an alternative to colonoscopy in this scenario.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-four consecutive patients, referred via the 2-week wait initiative and scheduled for colonoscopy, consented to undergo multidetector CT colonography immediately before endoscopy. The site and morphology of any polyp or cancer detected by CT was noted and comparison made with subsequent colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy detected polyps or cancer in 29 patients (53.7%). CT colonography prospectively detected 18 of 41 (44%) polyps of 1-5 mm, three of four (75%) polyps of 6-9 mm, four of four (100%) polyps 10 mm or larger, and five of six (83%) cancers. The missed cancer occurred early in the series and was a perceptive error. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of CT colonography for cancer and polyps 10 mm or greater on a per patient basis were 90, 100, 100 and 98%, respectively. CT detected one renal cancer and one colonic cancer, initially missed due to incomplete colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography is a robust technique for investigation of symptomatic patients. The learning curve must be overcome for optimal performance.

Extracolonic findings at computed tomography colonography are a challenge

AIM

Our aim was to perform a prospective evaluation of the frequency and diagnostic consequences of extracolonic findings at multidetector array computed tomography colonography (MDCTC) in asymptomatic patients undergoing surveillance for former colorectal polyps or cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventy five consecutive patients undergoing surveillance for former colorectal cancer (CRC) or large bowel adenoma were examined with MDCTC. Two independent observers evaluated the images with regard to extracolonic findings. Patient records and radiological information systems were reviewed to determine the results and consequences of the workup derived from MDCTC.

RESULTS

Sixty five per cent (95% confidence interval (CI) 55-73%) of patients had extracolonic abnormalities and in 12% (CI 7-18%) of patients additional workup was indicated. Two patients (3% (CI 1-6%)) underwent surgery because of the findings (one) or because of complications of the workup (one).

CONCLUSION

MDCTC identifies a large number of extracolonic findings. Approximately 12% of asymptomatic patients undergo additional workup, of benefit to only a few. The high prevalence of extracolonic findings may make MDCTC a problematic colorectal screening tool for both ethical and economic reasons.

CT Colonography of Colorectal Polyps:A Metaanalysis

OBJECTIVE

For proper evaluation of the accuracy of CT colonography, prospective multiinstitutional trials would be ideal. Until these trials are available, data can be collectively analyzed. The purpose of this study is to use metaanalysis to assess the reported accuracy of CT colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy for detecting colorectal polyps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Articles comparing CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy were identified, and a standardized form was used to extract relevant study data. Fisher's exact test and the Mantel-Haenszel test were used for pooling of data. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was selected to determine sensitivity and specificity, and the Kruskal-Wallis exact test was used to identify trends relating to polyp size. Meta-analysis methods were used to test strength of results. Comparisons were made for the percentage of polyps detected grouped by size (> or = 10 mm, 6-9 mm, < or = 5 mm) and the percentage of patients identified who had polyps of the same size.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies fulfilled all the study inclusion criteria and gave a total of 1,324 patients and 1,411 polyps. The pooled per-patient sensitivity for polyps 10 mm or larger was (sensitivity [95% CI]) 0.88 (0.84-0.93), for polyps 6-9 mm it was 0.84 (0.80-0.89), and for polyps 5 mm or smaller it was 0.65 (0.57-0.73). The pooled per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 10 mm or larger was 0.81 (0.76-0.85), for polyps 6-9 mm it was 0.62 (0.58-0.67), and for polyps 5 mm or smaller it was 0.43 (0.39-0.47). Sensitivity for detection of polyps increased as the polyp size increased (p < 0.00005). The pooled overall specificity for detection of polyps larger than 10 mm was 0.95 (0.94-0.97).

CONCLUSION

The specificity and sensitivity of CT colonography are high for polyps larger than 10 mm.

Three-dimensional display modes for CT colonography: conventional 3D virtual colonoscopy versus unfolded cube projection

The authors compared a conventional two-directional three-dimensional (3D) display for computed tomography (CT) colonography with an alternative method they developed on the basis of time efficiency and surface visibility. With the conventional technique, 3D ante- and retrograde cine loops were obtained (hereafter, conventional 3D). With the alternative method, six projections were obtained at 90 degrees viewing angles (unfolded cube display). Mean evaluation time per patient with the conventional 3D display was significantly longer than that with the unfolded cube display. With the conventional 3D method, 93.8% of the colon surface came into view; with the unfolded cube method, 99.5% of the colon surface came into view. Sensitivity and specificity were not significantly different between the two methods. Agreements between observers were kappa = 0.605 for conventional 3D display and kappa = 0.692 for unfolded cube display. Consequently, the latter method enhances the 3D endoluminal display with improved time efficiency and higher surface visibility.

Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND & AIMS

This study used a low lesion prevalence population reflective of the screening setting to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of computerized tomographic (CT) colonography for detection of colorectal polyps.

METHODS

This prospective, blinded study comprised 703 asymptomatic persons at higher-than-average risk for colorectal cancer who underwent CT colonography followed by same-day colonoscopy. Two of 3 experienced readers interpreted each CT colonography examination.

RESULTS

Overall lesion prevalence for adenomas >/=1 cm in diameter was 5%. Seventy percent of all lesions were proximal to the descending colon. With colonoscopy serving as the gold standard, CT colonography detected 34%, 32%, 73%, and 63% of the 59 polyps >/=1 cm for readers 1, 2, 3, and double-reading, respectively; and 35%, 29%, 57%, and 54% of the 94 polyps 5-9 mm for readers 1, 2, 3, and double-reading, respectively. Specificity for CT colonography ranged from 95% to 98% and 86% to 95% for >1 cm and 5-9-mm polyps, respectively. Interobserver variability was high for CT colonography with kappa statistic values ranging from -0.67 to 0.89.

CONCLUSIONS

In a low prevalence setting, polyp detection rates at CT colonography are well below those at colonoscopy. These rates are less than previous reports based largely on high lesion prevalence cohorts. High interobserver variability warrants further investigation but may be due to the low prevalence of polyps in this cohort and the high impact on total sensitivity of each missed polyp. Specificity, based on large numbers, is high and exhibits excellent agreement among observers.

Multislice CT colonography: current status and limitations

CT colonography (CTC) is a promising method for colorectal screening providing a full structural evaluation of the entire colon and gaining in popularity due to a superior safety profile, a low rate of complications, and high patient acceptance. Multislice CT (MSCT) has further improved the diagnostic potential of CTC by generating high-resolution CT images of the abdomen and pelvis in shorter acquisition times than was previously possible. Over the past year, multiple studies have been published on every aspect of CTC including techniques, image display, image reconstruction, and clinical trial results assessing the feasibility of CTC as a screening tool. Yet despite increasing clinical use, the appropriate role of CTC in colorectal cancer screening remains undefined and barriers to widespread adoption remain. In particular, though the test is generally regarded as easy to perform, accurate interpretation requires a steep learning curve. While several large studies have found high sensitivity and specificity, the accuracy of CTC in a screening population has yet to be verified and almost no health insurance plans reimburse for its use in colorectal screening. Ongoing research in computer-aided detection and new software tools, however, have the potential to increase accuracy and ease of interpretation significantly, accelerating its acceptance as a colorectal screening tool.

Colorectal neoplasms: role of intravenous contrast-enhanced CT colonography

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether computed tomographic (CT) colonography with intravenously administered contrast material can help predict malignant differentiation of colorectal neoplasms (> or =10 mm in diameter).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Enhancement of 29 consecutive colorectal neoplasms on pre- and postcontrast CT colonographic images was retrospectively measured. The neoplasms were subsequently resected. Enhancement was calculated by subtraction of attenuation values (in Hounsfield units) obtained with precontrast and postcontrast 45-second-delay prone CT colonographic sequences. The neoplasms were graded as follows: grade 1, adenoma; grade 2, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia; grade 3, well-differentiated adenocarcinoma; grade 4, moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma; and grade 5, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. Correlation among size, histologic grade, and degree of enhancement was made with Pearson and Spearman coefficients. The ability of the degree of enhancement to help predict adenocarcinoma (histologic grade, > or =3) was calculated.

RESULTS

Histologic-CT colonographic correlation was performed in 29 neoplasms (mean diameter, 27.9 mm; range, 10-65 mm). There was no correlation between size and degree of enhancement, size and histologic grade (R = -0.17, P =.33), or histologic grade and degree of enhancement (R = 0.23, P =.23). However, increasing enhancement was noted between grades 2 and 5. When an enhancement threshold of 40 HU was used for the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma (grades 3-5), sensitivity was 92%, specificity was 20%, positive predictive value was 50%, and negative predictive value was 75%.

CONCLUSION

The degree of contrast enhancement on a 45-second-delay CT colonographic image does not correlate with size or degree of histologic differentiation, although increasing enhancement with lesser degrees of differentiation was noted.

Validation of virtual colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps and masses: rationale for proper study design

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer, the second-leading cause of cancer-related mortality, is a preventable malignancy in many cases. Despite the availability of several screening modalities, compliance with screening recommendations remains unacceptably low. Virtual colonoscopy is a novel, minimally-invasive technique with the potential to increase colorectal cancer screening rates, but its effectiveness must first be validated. Published studies comparing virtual colonoscopy to conventional colonoscopy have reported varying results. These discrepancies may be attributed to differences in bowel preparation and scanning techniques, as well as errors in endoscopic lesion measurement, endoscopic colonic segmental localization, and the ability of conventional colonoscopy to actually detect lesions. These methodological issues can affect scientific results and ultimately affect the public's perception of this emerging technique.

AIM

The goal of this report is to expose existing methodological shortcomings and propose solutions incorporated in this study design. This article describes the rationale, study design, and outcome definitions of a single-center, blinded, direct comparative trial aiming at assessing the ability of virtual colonoscopy to detect colorectal polyps and masses relative to the criterion standard, conventional colonoscopy. DESIGN FEATURES: Bowel preparation was standardized using oral sodium phosphate lavage, orally administered iodinated contrast, and controlled colonic insufflation. Segmental unblinding allowed a second-look when results were discrepant and polyp matching was performed using an algorithm based on segmental localization and lesion size determination.

CONCLUSIONS

This methodology could be applied to other studies assessing the accuracy of virtual colonoscopy in order to have uniformity of results.

Colorectal cancer screening: scientific review

CONTEXT

Screening for colorectal cancer clearly reduces colorectal cancer mortality, yet many eligible adults remain unscreened. Several screening tests are available, and various professional organizations have differing recommendations on which screening test to use. Clinicians are challenged to ensure that eligible patients undergo colorectal cancer screening and to guide patients in choosing what tests to receive.

OBJECTIVE

To critically assess the evidence for use of the available colorectal cancer screening tests, including fecal occult blood tests, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, double-contrast barium enema, and newer tests, such as virtual colonoscopy and stool-based molecular screening.

DATA SOURCES

All relevant English-language articles were identified using PubMed (January 1966-August 2002), published meta-analyses, reference lists of key articles, and expert consultation.

DATA EXTRACTION

Studies that evaluated colorectal cancer screening in healthy individuals and assessed clinical outcomes were included. Evidence from randomized controlled trials was considered to be of highest quality, followed by observational evidence. Diagnostic accuracy studies were evaluated when randomized controlled trials and observational studies were not available or did not provide adequate evidence. Studies were excluded if they did not evaluate colorectal screening tests and if they did not evaluate average-risk individuals.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Randomized controlled trials have shown that fecal occult blood testing can reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Case-control studies have shown that sigmoidoscopy is associated with a reduction in mortality, and observational studies suggest colonoscopy is effective as well. Combining fecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy may decrease mortality and can increase diagnostic yield.

CONCLUSION

The recommendation that all men and women aged 50 years or older undergo screening for colorectal cancer is supported by a large body of direct and indirect evidence. At present, the available evidence does not currently support choosing one test over another.

Virtual colonoscopy: past, present, and future

Virtual colonoscopy is developing into a practical clinical technique. The issues of the steep learning curve and accuracy of the technique are undergoing advances related to patient preparation, scanning technique, reading methods, and CAD. It is probably the best test for patients with an incomplete colonoscopy or for those patients who cannot undergo colonoscopy. Its precise role in screening average-risk patients for colon cancer remains to be defined by ongoing research and clinical trials.

Virtual colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancers in a Chinese population

AIM

The aim of this study is to assess the sensitivity of virtual colonoscopy in detecting colorectal polyps and cancers in a Chinese population.

METHODS

Seventy-one consecutive Chinese patients (38 men and 33 women) referred for diagnostic colonoscopy were recruited. Patients received a routine bowel preparation in the morning followed by a helical abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan with air insufflation of the colon. The CT images were then processed by using surface-rendered software and interpreted by a single radiologist who was blinded to the clinical information. Colonoscopy was performed in the same afternoon without knowledge of the radiology results. All polyps and cancers were proven histologically.

RESULTS

Five colorectal cancers were diagnosed and all were detected by virtual colonoscopy. The sensitivity and specificity of virtual colonoscopy for the detection of patients with polyps of all sizes, and patients with polyps >/=10 mm were 59, 92, 88 and 100%, respectively. The procedure was well tolerated by all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was carried out in a real clinical setting without a preselection of cases. Virtual colonoscopy was satisfactory for the detection of polyps greater than 10 mm, and for the diagnosis of cancer, and it is also a promising imaging modality for colorectal neoplasm detection in a Chinese population.