CT colonography for investigation of patients with symptoms potentially suggestive of colorectal cancer: a review of the UK SIGGAR trials

Paradigm shift: the Copernican revolution in diverticular disease

Diverticular disease (DD) is an umbrella definition that includes different clinical conditions ranging from diverticulosis to severe and potentially life-threatening complications. In the last decade, new concepts regarding pathogenetic alterations have been developed, while the diagnostic, clinical and therapeutic approaches to the management of DD patients have changed. The protective role of dietary factors (i.e., fiber) has been questioned, whilst some drugs widely used in clinical practice have been found to have a deleterious effect. The use of antibiotics in all patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis was reconsidered, as well as the need for a surgical approach in these patients. Conflicting recommendations in different guidelines were proposed for the treatment of symptomatic uncomplicated DD. An endoscopic classification of DD was introduced, and a "curative" endoscopic approach has been pioneered. Based on these observations, which together amount to a kind of "Copernican revolution" in the management of DD patients, we performed a comprehensive and critical reappraisal of the proposed modifications, aiming to discriminate between certainties and doubts on this issue.

Prevalence of polyps ≥6 mm on follow-up CT colonography in a cohort with no significant colon polyps at baseline

AIM

Assess the prevalence of neoplasia ≥6 mm at repeat CT colonoscopy (CTC) in individuals with no significant lesions at baseline.

METHODS

Individuals aged ≥18 years, with/without CRC risk factors, with no polyps ≥6 mm on baseline CTC (negative baseline) who underwent repeat CTC in a large HMO from 2001 to 2011 were retrospectively identified. Studies were reviewed by board-certified radiologists with experience interpreting CTC. Demographic details, CRC risk factors, and the number, size, and location of incident lesions were noted. Findings were classified using the C-RADS scale. Lesion prevalence at CTC-2 was determined, and study interval and risk characteristics of patients with- and without findings were compared.

RESULTS

Our study included 636 individuals (369 men [58.0%]; mean age 59.9 years) with negative baseline CTC who underwent repeat CTC after a mean 4.6 year interval (SD 1.6 years). At baseline, 469/636 (73.7%) were at average risk for CRC; 418 remained at average risk for CTC-2 with 51 (8.0%) developing new risk factors in the interval between studies. At CTC-2, 47 participants (7.4%) presented 52 significant neoplasia: 35 polyps 6-9 mm, 14 polyps ≥10 mm, and 3 masses in 3/636 participants (0.47%). 2/3 masses, 6/14 polyps ≥10 mm (42.9%), and 12/25 polyps 6-9 mm (48.0%) were in individuals with risk factors for CRC. Histopathology was available for 12/52 lesions (23.1%): 8 tubular adenomas, 2 villous adenomas, 1 hamartomatous polyp, 1 case of normal tissue.

CONCLUSION

A mean 4.6 years after negative-baseline CTC, neoplasia ≥6 mm were seen in 7.4% of participants, including masses in 0.47%, supporting recommendations for a 5-year study interval.

Small Polyps at Endoluminal CT Colonography Are Often Seen But Ignored by Radiologists

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to describe the characteristics of polyps viewed but then dismissed incorrectly by radiologists at endoluminal CT colonography (CTC), eye movements during these errors, and features provoking false-positive diagnoses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-two radiologists viewed 30 endoluminal CTC videos, each depicting a polyp, while their eye movements were tracked. Half of the videos had computer-assisted detection (CAD), and half did not. Classification errors were defined when proven polyps were seen but dismissed. Eye movements during these errors and during correct polyp identifications were compared with multilevel modeling. Polyps were divided subsequently into "difficult to classify" and "easy to classify" using a classification error threshold of more than 15%. Polyp diameter, height, and subjective conspicuity and the proportion of time viewed were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Eye tracking revealed that 97% of false-negative polyp diagnoses were nonetheless preceded by the reader observing the polyp. The difficult polyps were significantly smaller than the easy polyps (mean diameter, 5.4 vs 8.2 mm, respectively p = 0.014) and were subjectively less conspicuous (median score, 4 vs 2; p = 0.0032). Readers spent proportionally less time viewing difficult polyps than viewing easy polyps (29.0% of the time they were on-screen vs 42.6%, respectively; p = 0.01) regardless of the presence of CAD.

CONCLUSION

Even small and subjectively inconspicuous polyps attract reader gaze, but they are nonetheless ignored. These errors are made rapidly even with CAD. Efforts to improve reader performance at CTC should focus on decision making rather than detection alone.

Cost Differences After Initial CT Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy in the Elderly

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To compare differences in Medicare costs 1 year after initial computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or initial optical colonoscopy (OC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of asymptomatic Medicare outpatients aged ≥ 66 years who received initial CTC (n = 531) or OC (n = 17,593) between January 2007 and December 2008; initial OC patients were matched on county of residence and year of screening. Outcomes included differences in total inpatient and outpatient Medicare costs 1 year after initial CTC or OC and differences in outpatient testing of potential findings in the colon, abdomen, pelvis, and lungs.

RESULTS

Higher adjusted costs per patient were revealed in the year after initial CTC compared to initial OC for outpatient testing related to potential colonic ($50; 95% confidence interval [CI], $12-$88; P = .010) and extracolonic findings ($64; 95% CI, $23-$106; P = .002). However, there were no differences in adjusted total costs per patient in the year after either modality ($2065; 95% CI, $1672-$5803; P = .28). Similarly, adjusted costs did not differ between cohorts for inpatient ($267; 95% CI, $1017-$1550; P = .68) or outpatient care ($2828; 95% CI, $311-$5966; P = .08).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher adjusted costs of outpatient testing potentially related to colonic and extracolonic findings among asymptomatic elderly patients 1 year after initial CTC compared to OC, we found no differences in adjusted total, inpatient, or outpatient costs between cohorts. Although Medicare does not cover screening CTC, our results suggest that these modalities generate comparable downstream costs to payers.