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

Scoring colorectal cancer risk with an artificial neural network based on self-reportable personal health data

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is third in prevalence and mortality among all cancers in the US. Currently, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends anyone ages 50-75 and/or with a family history to be screened for CRC. To improve screening specificity and sensitivity, we have built an artificial neural network (ANN) trained on 12 to 14 categories of personal health data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Years 1997-2016 of the NHIS contain 583,770 respondents who had never received a diagnosis of any cancer and 1409 who had received a diagnosis of CRC within 4 years of taking the survey. The trained ANN has sensitivity of 0.57 ± 0.03, specificity of 0.89 ± 0.02, positive predictive value of 0.0075 ± 0.0003, negative predictive value of 0.999 ± 0.001, and concordance of 0.80 ± 0.05 per the guidelines of Transparent Reporting of Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) level 2a, comparable to current risk-scoring methods. To demonstrate clinical applicability, both USPSTF guidelines and the trained ANN are used to stratify respondents to the 2017 NHIS into low-, medium- and high-risk categories (TRIPOD levels 4 and 2b, respectively). The number of CRC respondents misclassified as low risk is decreased from 35% by screening guidelines to 5% by ANN (in 60 cases). The number of non-CRC respondents misclassified as high risk is decreased from 53% by screening guidelines to 6% by ANN (in 25,457 cases). Our results demonstrate a robustly-tested method of stratifying CRC risk that is non-invasive, cost-effective, and easy to implement publicly.

Evolving role of computed tomographic colonography in colon cancer screening and diagnosis

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a relatively new imaging modality for the examination of patients for colorectal polyps and cancer. It has been validated in its accuracy for the detection of colon cancer and larger polyps (more than likely premalignant). CTC, however, is not widely accepted as a primary screening modality in the United States at present by many third-party payers, including Medicare, and its exact role in screening is evolving. Moreover, there has been opposition to incorporating CTC as an accepted screening instrument, especially by gastroenterologists. Heretofore, optical colonoscopy has been the mainstay in this screening. We discuss these issues and the continuing controversies concerning CTC.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk North Americans: an economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) fulfills the World Health Organization criteria for mass screening, but screening uptake is low in most countries. CRC screening is resource intensive, and it is unclear if an optimal strategy exists. The objective of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of CRC screening in average risk North American individuals considering all relevant screening modalities and current CRC treatment costs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

An incremental cost-utility analysis using a Markov model was performed comparing guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) annually, fecal DNA every 3 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy or computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years. All strategies were also compared to a no screening natural history arm. Given that different FIT assays and collection methods have been previously tested, three distinct FIT testing strategies were considered, on the basis of studies that have reported "low," "mid," and "high" test performance characteristics for detecting adenomas and CRC. Adenoma and CRC prevalence rates were based on a recent systematic review whereas screening adherence, test performance, and CRC treatment costs were based on publicly available data. The outcome measures included lifetime costs, number of cancers, cancer-related deaths, quality-adjusted life-years gained, and incremental cost-utility ratios. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed. Annual FIT, assuming mid-range testing characteristics, was more effective and less costly compared to all strategies (including no screening) except FIT-high. Among the lifetimes of 100,000 average-risk patients, the number of cancers could be reduced from 4,857 to 1,393 [corrected] and the number of CRC deaths from 1,782 [corrected] to 457, while saving CAN$68 per person. Although screening patients with FIT became more expensive than a strategy of no screening when the test performance of FIT was reduced, or the cost of managing CRC was lowered (e.g., for jurisdictions that do not fund expensive biologic chemotherapeutic regimens), CRC screening with FIT remained economically attractive.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC screening with FIT reduces the risk of CRC and CRC-related deaths, and lowers health care costs in comparison to no screening and to other existing screening strategies. Health policy decision makers should consider prioritizing funding for CRC screening using FIT.

Prevalence of adenomas and colorectal cancer in average risk individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is an extensive yet inconsistent body of literature reporting on the prevalence of adenomatous polyps (adenomas) and colorectal cancer among average risk individuals. The objectives of our study were to determine the pooled prevalence of adenomas and colorectal cancer, as well as nonadvanced and advanced adenomas, among average risk North Americans.

METHODS

Articles were obtained by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE: 1950 through March 2008 and EMBASE: 1980 through March 2008), bibliographies, major journals, and conference proceedings, with no language restrictions. Two reviewers independently selected cross-sectional studies reporting adenoma and colorectal cancer prevalence rates in average risk individuals and assessed studies for inclusion and quality, and extracted the data for analysis. Pooled adenoma and colorectal cancer prevalence rates were estimated using fixed and random effects models. Stratification and metaregression was used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Based on 18 included studies, the pooled prevalence of adenomas, colorectal cancer, nonadvanced adenomas, and advanced adenomas was 30.2%, 0.3%, 17.7%, and 5.7%, respectively. Heterogeneity was observed in the pooled prevalence rates for overall adenomas, advanced adenomas, and colorectal cancer and was explained by the mean age (> or = 65 years vs < 65 years) with older cohorts reporting higher prevalence rates. None of the study quality indicators was found to be significant predictors of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

The high prevalence of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer, especially among older screen-eligible individuals, provides impetus for expanding colorectal cancer screening programs. Furthermore, the pooled prevalence estimates can be used as quality indicators for established programs.

Application of computed tomographic colonography in diagnosis of colonic polyps

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical values of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in diagnosis of colonic polyps.

METHODS

Forty-two patients who were clinically suspicious of colonic polyps or underwent colonic polyps screening received examinations with both CTC and conventional colonoscopy. Sixteen- or 64-slice spiral computed tomography and professional imaging processing techniques were used for evaluation. Per-polyp and per-patient results were analyzed. Those by per-polyp were subsequently divided into > or = 10 mm group, 5-10 mm group, and < or =5 mm group. Sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated using statistical method for diagnostic studies, with conventional colonoscopy as a gold standard.

RESULTS

Ninety and 61 polyps were found by CTC and conventional colonoscopy, respectively. The per-polyp sensitivity/PPV were 80.3%/55.6% in total, and 100%/92.9%, 93.8%/65.2%, and 68.8%/ 41.5% in the > or = 10 mm group, 5-10 mm group, and < or =5 mm group, respectively. The per-patient sensitivity, PPV, specificity, NPV, and accuracy were 97.1%, 89.5%, 42.9%, 75.0%, and 88.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CTC can clearly reveal the morphology of colonic polyps and be used as a routine monitoring method for the clinical diagnosis of polyps.

Computed tomography colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) compared with conventional colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS

Patients with an indication of CC were included. Fifty patients underwent CTC using multidetector CT before diagnostic colonoscopy was performed by an expert colonoscopist. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed individually both for each polyp and for each patient.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were included and 40 polyps were analyzed. The by-polyp sensitivity of CTC was 15% for polyps 5 mm or less, 75% for polyps 5- 10 mm and 75% for polyps 10 mm or larger. By-patient specificity was 6% for polyps 5 mm or less, 75% for polyps 5-10 mm and 80% for polyps 10 mm or larger. The specificity of CTC was 94%. CTC was preferred over CC by 90% of the patients. The mean colonoscopy examination time was 30 minutes for CC and 35 minutes for CTC (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of CTC is moderate in detecting polyps larger than 10 mm, low in detecting 5-10 mm polyps and very low in detecting those less than 5 mm. The overall specificity of the procedure was 94%. Procedure time was lower with CC than with CTC but the latter was better tolerated by most patients.

Transparent rendering of intraluminal contrast for 3D polyp visualization at CT colonography

We developed a classifier that permits transparent rendering of both tagging material and air to facilitate interpretation of tagged computed tomographic (CT) colonography. With this technique, a reader can simultaneously appreciate polyps on endoluminal views both covered with tagging material and against air, along with unmodified 2-dimensional CT images. Evaluated with 49 polyps from 26 patients (data from public National Library of Medicine, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant), 3 readers were able to determine the presence/absence of polyps in tagged locations with equivalent accuracy compared with polyps in air. This method offers an alternative way to visualize tagged CT colonography.

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.

Colorectal polyps: detection with low-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography versus two sequential colonoscopies

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of low-radiation-dose computed tomographic (CT) colonography for detection of colorectal polyps by using two sequential colonoscopies, with the second colonoscopy as the reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was local ethics committee approved, and all patients gave written informed consent. Colonographic images were acquired by using a low-dose multi-detector row CT protocol (effective milliampere-second setting, 10 mAs). Three observers interpreted the CT colonographic data separately and independently by using a two-dimensional technique. Initial conventional colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist unaware of the CT colonographic findings. Second colonoscopy performed within 2 weeks by a colonoscopist aware of both the CT colonographic and the initial colonoscopic findings served as the reference standard. The sensitivities of CT colonography and initial colonoscopy were calculated on a per-polyp and a per-patient basis. Specificities and positive and negative predictive values also were calculated on a per-patient basis.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients underwent CT colonography and initial conventional colonoscopy on the same day. Per-polyp sensitivities were 62% and 83% for CT colonography and initial colonoscopy, respectively. Sensitivities for detection of polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger were 86% and 84% for CT colonography and initial colonoscopy, respectively. Initial colonoscopy failed to depict 16 polyps, six of which were correctly detected with CT colonography. For identification of patients with polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger, CT colonography and initial colonoscopy, respectively, had sensitivities of 84% and 90%, specificities of 82% and 100%, positive predictive values of 70% and 100%, and negative predictive values of 91% and 95%.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose CT colonography compares favorably with colonoscopy for detection of colorectal polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger, with markedly decreased performance for detection of polyps 5 mm in diameter or smaller.

Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Computerized tomographic (CT) colonography is a potential alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Its main advantage, a better safety profile, may be offset by its limitations: lower sensitivity, need for colonoscopy in cases where results are positive, and expense.

METHODS

We performed an economic evaluation, using decision analysis, to compare CT colonography with colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in patients over 50 years of age. Three-year outcomes included number of colonoscopies, perforations and adenomas removed; deaths from perforation and from colorectal cancer from missed adenomas; and direct health care costs. The expected prevalence of adenomas, test performance characteristics of CT colonography and colonoscopy, and probability of colonoscopy complications and cancer from missed adenomas were derived from the literature. Costs were determined in detail locally.

RESULTS

Using the base-case assumptions, a strategy of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening would cost 2.27 million dollars extra per 100,000 patients screened; 3.78 perforation-related deaths would be avoided, but 4.11 extra deaths would occur from missed adenomas. Because screening with CT colonography would cost more and result in more deaths overall compared with colonoscopy, the latter remained the dominant strategy. Our results were sensitive to CT colonography's test performance characteristics, the malignant risk of missed adenomas, the risk of perforation and related death, the procedural costs and differences in screening adherence.

INTERPRETATION

At present, CT colonography cannot be recommended as a primary means of population-based colorectal cancer screening in Canada.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We prospectively compared the performance of low-dose multidetector computed tomographic colonography (CTC) without cathartic preparation with that of colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.

METHODS

A total of 203 patients underwent low-dose CTC without cathartic preparation followed by colonoscopy. Before CTC, fecal tagging was achieved by adding diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium to regular meals. No subtraction of tagged feces was performed. Colonoscopy was performed 3-7 days after CTC. Three readers interpreted the CTC examinations separately and independently using a primary 2-dimensional approach using multiplanar reconstructions and 3-dimensional images for further characterization. Colonoscopy with segmental unblinding was used as reference standard. The sensitivity of CTC was calculated both on a per-polyp and a per-patient basis. For the latter, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were also calculated.

RESULTS

CTC had an average sensitivity of 95.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.1%-99%) for the identification of colorectal polyps > or =8 mm. With regard to per-patient analysis, CTC yielded an average sensitivity of 89.9% (95% CI, 86%-93.7%), an average specificity of 92.2% (95% CI, 89.5%-94.9%), an average positive predictive value of 88% (95% CI, 83.3%-91.5%), and an average negative predictive value of 93.5% (95% CI, 90.9%-96%). Interobserver agreement was high on a per-polyp basis (kappa statistic range, .61-.74) and high to excellent on a per-patient basis (kappa statistic range, .79-.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose multidetector CTC without cathartic preparation compares favorably with colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.

Prospective comparison of contrast enhanced CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasms in a single institutional study using second-look colonoscopy with discrepant results

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of death from cancer in Western countries. Early detection by colorectal cancer screening can effectively cut its mortality rate. CT colonography represents a promising, minimally invasive alternative to conventional methods of colorectal carcinoma screening.

AIMS

The purpose of this prospective single institutional study was to compare the abilities of routine clinical CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy to detect colorectal neoplasms using second-look colonoscopy to clarify discrepant results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

CT colonography was performed in 100 symptomatic patients using contrast enhanced multidetector CT followed by conventional colonoscopy on the same day. If results were discrepant, a second-look colonoscopy was performed after unblinding. CT colonographic findings were compared with those of conventional colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Conventional colonoscopy found 122 colorectal neoplasms in 49 patients. The overall sensitivity of CT colonography at detecting patients with at least one polyp 6 mm or larger was 76% and its specificity was 88%. Its by-patient sensitivity for polyps 10 mm or larger was 95% and its specificity was 98%. By-polyp sensitivities were 71% for polyps 10 mm or larger, and 61% for polyps 6 mm or larger. A second-look colonoscopy was performed in 19 patients and two initial false-positive findings of CT colonography were reclassified as true-positive. For conventional colonoscopy, this produced a by-polyp sensitivity of 94% for detection of lesions 6 mm and larger.

CONCLUSIONS

CT colonography had both a high by-patient sensitivity and specificity for detection of clinically important colorectal neoplasms 10 mm or larger. This suggests that CT colonography has the potential to become a valuable clinical screening method for colorectal neoplasms.

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.

Challenges to cancer control by screening

Population-based screening seems to be a common-sense strategy for controlling cancer, but recent reports have raised controversy concerning the benefits of common screening procedures. Intense efforts to develop and evaluate novel screening technologies are underway; however, effective use of any screening method must take into account any underlying biological considerations. What are these biological issues, and what challenges do clinicians face in screening for common cancers?