The time has arrived for national reimbursement of screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:73-79. [PMID: 23789660 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.13.10656]

Computed Tomography Colonography: 2025 Update

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Most cases arise from polyps, which can be detected and removed before becoming cancerous. Computed tomography colonography (CTC), also known as virtual colonoscopy, was first introduced in 1994 as a minimally invasive method for CRC screening and diagnosis. This 2025 update on CTC will focus on (1) techniques and dose reduction strategies, (2) image display methods, (3) reporting and classification systems, (4) tumor staging capabilities, (5) integration of advanced imaging techniques, and (6) cost-effectiveness and reimbursement.

Sociodemographic Factors and Screening CT Colonography Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND. Approximately one-third of the eligible U.S. population have not undergone guideline-compliant colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Guidelines recognize various screening strategies to increase adherence. CMS provides coverage for all recommended screening tests except CT colonography (CTC). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CTC and other CRC screening tests in terms of associations of utilization with income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. METHODS. This retrospective study used CMS Research Identifiable Files from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020. These files contain claims information for 5% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Data were extracted for individuals 45-85 years old, and individuals with high CRC risk were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine the likelihood of undergoing CRC screening tests (as well as of undergoing diagnostic CTC, a CMS-covered test with similar physical access as screening CTC) as a function of income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity while controlling for sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, U.S. census region, screening year, and related conditions and procedures. RESULTS. For 12,273,363 beneficiary years (mean age, 70.5 ± 8.2 [SD] years; 2,436,849 unique beneficiaries: 6,774,837 female beneficiaries, 5,498,526 male beneficiaries), there were 785,103 CRC screenings events, including 645 for screening CTC. Compared with individuals living in communities with per capita income of less than US$25,000, individuals in communities with income of US$100,000 or more had OR for undergoing screening CTC of 5.73, optical colonoscopy (OC) of 1.36, sigmoidoscopy of 1.03, guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test of 1.50, stool DNA of 1.43, and diagnostic CTC of 2.00. The OR for undergoing screening CTC was 1.00 for Hispanic individuals and 1.08 for non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Compared with the OR for undergoing screening CTC for residents of metropolitan areas, the OR was 0.51 for residents of micropolitan areas and 0.65 for residents of small or rural areas. CONCLUSION. The association with income was substantially larger for screening CTC than for other CRC screening tests or for diagnostic CTC. CLINICAL IMPACT. Medicare's noncoverage for screening CTC may contribute to lower adherence with CRC screening guidelines for lower-income beneficiaries. Medicare coverage of CTC could reduce income-based disparities for individuals avoiding OC owing to invasiveness, need for anesthesia, or complication risk.

Accuracy of Combined Computed Tomography Colonography and Dual Energy Iiodine Map Imaging for Detecting Colorectal masses using High-pitch Dual-source CT

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of combined computed tomography colonography (CTC) and dual-energy iodine map imaging for detecting colorectal masses using high-pitch dual-source CT, compared with optical colonography (OC) and histopathologic findings. Twenty-eight consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled in this study. All patients were underwent contrast-enhanced CTC acquisition using dual-energy mode and OC and pathologic examination. The size of the space-occupied mass, the CT value after contrast enhancement, and the iodine value were measured and statistically compared. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy rate, and positive predictive and negative predictive values of dual-energy contrast-enhanced CTC were calculated and compared between conventional CTC and dual-energy iodine images. The iodine value of stool was significantly lower than the colonic neoplasia (P < 0.01). The sensitivity of conventional CTC was 95.6% (95% CI = 77.9%–99.2%), combined CTC and dual-energy iodine maps imaging was 95.6% (95% CI = 77.9%–99.2%). The specificity of the two methods was 42.8% (95% CI = 15.4%–93.5%) and 100% (95% CI = 47.9%–100%; P = 0.02), respectively. Compared with optical colonography and histopathology, combined CTC and dual-energy iodine maps imaging can distinguish stool and colonic neoplasia, distinguish between benign and malignant tumors initially and improve the diagnostic accuracy of CTC for colorectal cancer screening.

Medicare cost of colorectal cancer screening: CT colonography vs. optical colonoscopy

PURPOSE

To compare the Medicare population cost of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of average risk individuals by CT colonography (CTC) vs. optical colonoscopy (OC).

METHODS

The authors used Medicare claims data, fee schedules, established protocols, and other sources to estimate CTC and OC per-screen costs, including the costs of OC referrals for a subset of CTC patients. They then modeled and compared the Medicare costs of patients who complied with CTC and OC screening recommendations and tested alternative scenarios.

RESULTS

CTC is 29% less expensive than OC for the Medicare population in the base scenario. Although the CTC cost advantage is increased or reduced under alternative scenarios, it is always positive.

CONCLUSION

CTC is a cost-effective CRC screening option for the Medicare population and will likely reduce Medicare expenditures for CRC screening.

Reassessing medicare trends in diagnostic CT colonography after achieving CPT code category I status

PURPOSE

Compare national trends in utilization and coverage of diagnostic (non-screening) computed tomography colonography (CTC) in the Medicare population before and after achieving Current Procedural Terminology(®) (CPT) Category I code status in 2010.

METHODS

Claims by provider type and location for diagnostic CTC were identified between 2005 and 2013 using Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files. Frequencies of billed and denied services were used to calculate denial rates for CTC and abdominal computed tomography (CT). PubMed search for articles with "CT colonography" in abstract or title during 1997-2013 was performed. Publications were recorded yearly and matched to CTC denial rates.

RESULTS

Annual Medicare claims for diagnostic CTC increased 212% during 2005-2009 in Category III status and increased 27.4% during 2009-2013 after implementation of Category I codes. Claims for abdominal CT rose 13.4% over the same overall period. Denial rates decreased from 70% to 32.8% between 2005 and 2009, and fluctuated between 24.7 and 30.6% thereafter. Denial rates for abdominal CT remained constant (4.1%-4.6%). From 2005 to 2013, services grew most in the private office (1678-7293) and hospital outpatient (1644-6449) settings with radiologists performing 93.3% of CTC. 1037 CTC publications were identified which increased 3567% between 1997 (3) and 2008 (107), plateaued until 2010 (114) and declined thereafter (75 in 2013).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic CTC grew dramatically from 2005 to 2009, but slowed thereafter; even after achieving CPT Category I code status in 2010. Medicare denial rates declined during early years but later stabilized which paralleled a slowing in new peer-reviewed research. CTC continues to be performed predominately by radiologists in the outpatient setting.

Pilot study on image quality and radiation dose of CT colonography with adaptive iterative dose reduction three-dimensional

Objective

To investigate image quality and radiation dose of CT colonography (CTC) with adaptive iterative dose reduction three-dimensional (AIDR3D).

Methods

Ten segments of porcine colon phantom were collected, and 30 pedunculate polyps with diameters ranging from 1 to 15 mm were simulated on each segment. Image data were acquired with tube voltage of 120 kVp, and current doses of 10 mAs, 20 mAs, 30 mAs, 40 mAs, 50 mAs, respectively. CTC images were reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and AIDR3D. Two radiologists blindly evaluated image quality. Quantitative evaluation of image quality included image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Qualitative image quality was evaluated with a five-score scale. Radiation dose was calculated based on dose-length product. Ten volunteers were examined supine 50 mAs with FBP and prone 20 mAs with AIDR3D, and image qualities were assessed. Paired t test was performed for statistical analysis.

Results

For 20 mAs with AIDR3D and 50 mAs with FBP, image noise, SNRs and CNRs were (16.4 ± 1.6) HU vs. (16.8 ± 2.6) HU, 1.9 ± 0.2 vs. 1.9 ± 0.4, and 62.3 ± 6.8 vs. 62.0 ± 6.2, respectively; qualitative image quality scores were 4.1 and 4.3, respectively; their differences were all not statistically significant. Compared with 50 mAs with FBP, radiation dose (1.62 mSv) of 20 mAs with AIDR3D was decreased by 60.0%. There was no statistically significant difference in image noise, SNRs, CNRs and qualitative image quality scores between prone 20 mAs with AIDR3D and supine 50 mAs with FBP in 10 volunteers, the former reduced radiation dose by 61.1%.

Conclusion

Image quality of CTC using 20 mAs with AIDR3D could be comparable to standard 50 mAs with FBP, radiation dose of the former reduced by about 60.0% and was only 1.62 mSv.

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

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

Evaluation of dose reduction and image quality in CT colonography: comparison of low-dose CT with iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively evaluate the radiation dose and image quality comparing low-dose CT colonography (CTC) reconstructed using different levels of iterative reconstruction techniques with routine-dose CTC reconstructed with filtered back projection.

METHODS

Following institutional ethics clearance and informed consent procedures, 210 patients underwent screening CTC using automatic tube current modulation for dual positions. Examinations were performed in the supine position with a routine-dose protocol and in the prone position, randomly applying four different low-dose protocols. Supine images were reconstructed with filtered back projection and prone images with iterative reconstruction. Two blinded observers assessed the image quality of endoluminal images. Image noise was quantitatively assessed by region-of-interest measurements.

RESULTS

The mean effective dose in the supine series was 1.88 mSv using routine-dose CTC, compared to 0.92, 0.69, 0.57, and 0.46 mSv at four different low doses in the prone series (p < 0.01). Overall image quality and noise of low-dose CTC with iterative reconstruction were significantly improved compared to routine-dose CTC using filtered back projection. The lowest dose group had image quality comparable to routine-dose images.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose CTC with iterative reconstruction reduces the radiation dose by 48.5 to 75.1% without image quality degradation compared to routine-dose CTC with filtered back projection.

KEY POINTS

• Low-dose CTC reduces radiation dose ≥ 48.5% compared to routine-dose CTC. • Iterative reconstruction improves overall CTC image quality compared with FBP. • Iterative reconstruction reduces overall CTC image noise compared with FBP. • Automated exposure control with iterative reconstruction is useful for low-dose CTC.

CT colonography in the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer: Emphasis on pre- and post-surgical evaluation

This article addresses the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) for the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer, focusing on presurgical evaluation of the colon proximal to an occlusive cancer and surveillance after cancer resection surgery. The key evidences accumulated in the literature and future work needed are summarized. CTC is a technically robust and the most practical method to evaluate the colon proximal to an occlusive cancer, which prevents colonoscopic examination past the occlusion, either before or after metallic stent placement. The high sensitivity of CTC for detecting cancers and advanced adenomas in the proximal colon can help prevent additional surgical procedures in patients showing negative results. However, the accuracy of CTC for distinguishing intramural cancers from adenomas is low, and the technique is limited in guiding management when a medium-sized lesion that do not show invasive features such as pericolic extension or nodal metastasis is found in the proximal colon. A maximal diameter ≥ 15 mm has been proposed as a criterion for surgical removal of proximal lesions. However, this needs to be verified in a larger cohort. In addition, the influence of presurgical CTC results on the current post-cancer resection colonic surveillance timeline remains to be determined. CTC can be readily added to the routine abdominopelvic CT in the form of contrast-enhanced CTC, which can serve as an effective stand-alone tool for post-cancer resection surveillance of both the colorectum and extracolonic organs. Although the accuracy of CTC has been demonstrated, its role in the current colonoscopy-based postoperative colonic surveillance protocols remains to be determined. Readers of CTC also need to be knowledgeable on the colonic lesions that are unique to the postoperative colon.