CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS): benchmark values from a clinical screening program

The variability in interpretation of colonic codes in CT colonography reporting: a single-centre experience

AIM

Although standardised summary codes to classify colonic findings (C-codes) on computed tomography colonography (CTC) have been used for several years, there is no clear guidance on how these codes should be interpreted. The aims of this study were to (1) establish CTC C-code demographics and reporting practice at our hospital and (2) determine the agreement between CTC reporters when using C-codes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Waiving ethical approval, this online questionnaire study invited all radiologists, reporting radiographers and radiology trainees who reported CTC at our hospital between 22/02/2023 and 05/03/2023. In total 20 questions were developed with 9 questions on demographics and reporting practice followed by 11 case scenarios. Agreement between participants for the case scenarios was calculated using Fleiss kappa and mean pairwise agreement.

RESULTS

18/21 (85.7%) of participants completed the questionnaire. The majority of respondents reported using C-codes "always" (17/18, 94.4%). Overall agreement for the 11 case scenarios was fair [0.39 (95% CI 0.38-0.41)] with a mean pairwise agreement of 46.9%. Agreement was significantly greater for reporters with ≤ 1000 than > 1000 CTC experience (p < 0.001), those who reported diminutive polyps than those who did not (p < 0.001), and adequate than inadequate case scenarios (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This questionnaire study demonstrates variation with how C-codes are interpreted at our institution. We suggest a national survey to determine whether this is a widespread issue and to inform development of formal implementation guidance within the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS): Version 2023 Update

The CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS) has withstood the test of time and proven to be a robust classification scheme for CT colonography (CTC) findings. C-RADS version 2023 represents an update on the scheme used for colorectal and extracolonic findings at CTC. The update provides useful insights gained since the implementation of the original system in 2005. Increased experience has demonstrated confusion on how to classify the mass-like appearance of the colon consisting of soft tissue attenuation that occurs in segments with acute or chronic diverticulitis. Therefore, the update introduces a new subcategory, C2b, specifically for mass-like diverticular strictures, which are likely benign. Additionally, the update simplifies extracolonic classification by combining E1 and E2 categories into an updated extracolonic category of E1/E2 since, irrespective of whether a finding is considered a normal variant (category E1) or an otherwise clinically unimportant finding (category E2), no additional follow-up is required. This simplifies and streamlines the classification into one category, which results in the same management recommendation.

Quantification and significance of extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI: a retrospective analysis and three-tier classification

OBJECTIVES

To quantify extraprostatic findings (EPFs) on prostate MRI, estimate the proportion of reported and unreported EPFs, assess their clinical importance, and propose standardized reporting of EPFs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prostate 3-T MRI studies, reports, and clinical data from 623 patients (age 67.9 ± 8.2 years) were retrospectively analyzed and re-evaluated for the presence of EPFs and their clinical significance: E1-no finding or findings that have no clinical significance; E2-potentially significant findings; and E3-significant findings.

RESULTS

Secondary reading identified 1236 EPFs in 593 patients (1.98 ± 1.13 EPFs per patient, no EPFs in 30 patients), from which 468 (37.8%) were mentioned in the original report. The most common findings included diverticulosis (44% of patients), hydrocele (34%), inguinal fat hernia (16%), and bladder wall trabecular hypertrophy (15%). There were 80 (6.5%) E2 EPFs and 30 (2.4%) E3 EPFs. From E3 EPFs, 10 (33%) were not originally reported. A workup was suggested in 35 (52%) of the 67 originally reported E2 and E3 findings with follow-up and performed in 20 (30%). Fourteen (21%) EPFs in 11 patients influenced their management. Four experienced radiologists originally reported 1.8 to 2.5 findings per patient (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

EPFs on prostate MRI are frequent, but only 2.4% are clinically significant (E3), and 33% of these are not reported. Only 30% of E2 and E3 findings are further explored, and 21% influence patient management. We suggest that an "E" category should be attached to the PI-RADS system to identify the presence of EPFs that require further workup.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI are frequent, but only 2.4% are clinically significant (E3), and 33% of these are not reported. We advocate standardized reporting of extraprostatic findings indicating their clinical significance.

KEY POINTS

• Extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI are frequent with an average of two findings per patient. • 2.4% of extraprostatic findings are significant, and 33% of these are not reported. • There is a significant variability among experienced radiologists in reporting extraprostatic findings.

The adoption of LI-RADS: a survey of non-academic radiologists

PURPOSE

To understand the practice and determinants of non-academic radiologists regarding LI-RADS and the four current LI-RADS algorithms: CT/MRI, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), ultrasound (US), and CT/MRI Treatment Response.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven themes were covered in this international survey, as follows: (1) demographics of participants and sub-specialty, (2) HCC practice and interpretation, (3) reporting practice, (4) screening and surveillance, (5) HCC imaging diagnosis, (6) treatment response, and (7) CT and MRI technique.

RESULTS

Of the 232 participants, 69.4% were from the United States, 25.0% from Canada, and 5.6% from other countries and 45.9% were abdominal/body imagers. During their radiology training or fellowship, no formal HCC diagnostic system was used by 48.7% and LI-RADS was used by 44.4% of participants. In their current practice, 73.6% used LI-RADS, 24.7% no formal system, 6.5% UNOS-OPTN, and 1.3% AASLD. Barriers to LI-RADS adoption included lack of familiarity (25.1%), not used by referring clinicians (21.6%), perceived complexity (14.5%), and personal preference (5.3%). The US LI-RADS algorithm was used routinely by 9.9% of respondents and CEUS LI-RADS was used by 3.9% of the respondents. The LI-RADS treatment response algorithm was used by 43.5% of the respondents. 60.9% of respondents thought that webinars/workshops on LI-RADS Technical Recommendations would help them implement these recommendations in their practice.

CONCLUSION

A majority of the non-academic radiologists surveyed use the LI-RADS CT/MR algorithm for HCC diagnosis, while nearly half use the LI-RADS TR algorithm for assessment of treatment response. Less than 10% of the participants routinely use the LI-RADS US and CEUS algorithms.

Incidentalomas at abdominal imaging

As all radiologists are well aware, cross-sectional abdominal imaging tests such as CT, MR, and ultrasound generally include organs and structures that are not directly related to the clinical indication for obtaining the examination. As a result, unsuspected additional findings or "incidentalomas" must be handled in a responsible manner that balances any need for reporting and management against the potential harms that may result from such actions. The majority of abdominal incidentalomas detected at imaging will not cause downstream harm to the patient, unless perhaps the radiologist unleashes an unnecessary work-up cascade that results in patient anxiety, inconvenience, added costs, or complications. Applying the principle of primum non-nocere, an argument can be made for not even reporting incidental imaging findings that have an exceedingly low likelihood of clinical relevance, such as small, simple-appearing sporadic cysts that are commonly seen in many abdominal organs. The situation becomes more challenging, however, when "likely benign" yet indeterminate lesions are encountered. At some threshold, which is difficult to precisely define for all cases, further action may be indicated, be it imaging follow-up to confirm resolution or stability, more definitive imaging characterization, or even tissue sampling. For more concerning or ominous incidentalomas, the need for further work-up will be more clear cut.

Computed tomographic colonography for symptomatic patients: the diminutive polyp dilemma

BACKGROUND

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is sensitive to polyp detection but is considered inaccurate for measuring diminutive polyps (<6 mm), with divergence between CTC and either colonoscopic or histopathological polyp measurements. Reporting diminutive polyps remains debatable. This study aims to compare outcomes of symptomatic patients with diminutive versus borderline polyps on CTC and to thereby examine the potential implication of reporting diminutive polyps.

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective study of symptomatic patients who underwent CTC from October 2016 through September 2018 was performed. After excluding CTC demonstrating cancer, no polyps, or polyps >6 mm, cases were categorized as either 'diminutive' (largest polyp <6 mm), or 'borderline' (largest polyp = 6 mm). The outcome measures were progression to endoscopy, surgery, procedure-related morbidity, dysplasia and malignancy.

RESULTS

A total of 308 cases (211 diminutive and 97 borderline) were analysed. The groups were similar (P > 0.05) in mean age (73 vs. 74 years), female proportion (57% vs. 49%), endoscopy-related morbidity (6% vs. 7%) and CTC-related morbidity (0 vs. 1%). Most patients (64%) underwent endoscopy, which was more common in the borderline vs. the diminutive group (76% vs. 59%; P = 0.003). Dysplasia was more common in the borderline vs. the diminutive group (69% vs. 48%; P = 0.003). No malignancies were diagnosed, and no patients proceeded to surgery.

CONCLUSION

Reporting diminutive polyps on CTC for symptomatic patients frequently leads to endoscopy, which often reveals dysplasia but rarely malignancy. This raises the question of how referring clinicians can best counsel and manage symptomatic patients with diminutive polyps on CTC, by considering the balance between utilitarianism and deontology.

Detection of High-Risk Sessile Serrated Lesions: Multi-Target Stool DNA Versus CT Colonography

Background: The serrated pathway for colorectal cancer (CRC) development is increasingly recognized. Patients with sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) that are large (≥10 mm) and/or have dysplasia (i.e., high-risk SSLs) are at higher risk of progression to CRC. Detection of SSLs is challenging given their predominantly flat and right-sided location. The yield of non-invasive screening tests for detection of high-risk SSLs is unclear. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare non-invasive screen detection of high-risk SSLs between the multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA; Cologuard) and CT colonography (CTC). Methods: This retrospective study included 7974 asymptomatic adults (4705 women, 3269 men; mean age 60.0 years) who underwent CRC screening at a single center by mt-sDNA (Cologuard) from 2014-2019 (n=3987) or by CTC from 2009-2019 (n=3987). Clinical interpretations of CTC examinations were recorded. Subsequent colonoscopy findings and histology of resected polyps were also recorded. Chi-square or two-sample t tests were used to compare results between mt-sDNA and CTC using 6-mm and 10-mm thresholds for test positivity. Results: The overall colonoscopy referral rate for a positive screening test was 13.1% (522/3987) for mt-sDNA versus 12.2% (487/3987; p=.23) and 6.5% (260/3987; p<.001) for CTC at 6-mm and 10-mm thresholds, respectively. The PPV for high-risk SSLs was 5.5% (26/476) for mt-sDNA, versus 14.4% (66/457; p<.001) and 25.9% (63/243; p<.001) for CTC at 6-mm and 10-mm thresholds, respectively. The overall screening yield of high-risk SSLs was 0.7% (26/3987) for mt-sDNA versus 1.7% (66/3987; p<.001) and 1.6% (63/3987; p<.001) for CTC at 6-mm and 10-mm thresholds, respectively. Conclusions: CTC at 6-mm and 10-mm thresholds had significantly higher yield and PPV for high-risk SSLs compared with mt-sDNA. Clinical Impact: The significantly higher detection of high-risk SSLs by CTC than by mt-sDNA should be included in discussions with patients who decline colonoscopy and opt for noninvasive screening.

Implications of colonic and extra-colonic findings on CT colonography in FIT positive patients in the Dutch bowel cancer screening program

OBJECTIVES

In the Dutch National colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program, patients with a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) are referred for a colonoscopy. In a small proportion, because of contraindications, a computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is performed to rule out advanced neoplasia. The aim of our study is to evaluate the intra- and extra-colonic yield of CTC and its clinical implications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, all FIT positive patients who underwent primary (instead of colonoscopy) or secondary CTC (after incomplete colonoscopy) between January 2014 and January 2018 were included. Relevant intra-colonic lesions on CTC were defined as lesions suspected for CRC or >10 mm. Relevant extra-colonic findings were defined as E3 and E4 using the E-RADS classification.

RESULTS

Of the 268 included patients, 66 (24.6%) were suspected to have CRC or 10 mm + lesion on CTC and 56 of them (84.8%) underwent an additional endoscopy. Another 20 patients with <10 mm lesions on CTC underwent additional endoscopy. Overall, 76/268 patients (28.4%) underwent confirmatory endoscopy of which 50 (18.7%) had histologic confirmed advanced neoplasia; 4.9% had CRC and 13.8% advanced adenoma. New relevant extra-colonic findings were detected in 13.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Dutch National CRC screening program, a CTC was followed by an endoscopic procedure in more than a quarter of patients, resulting in a significant number of advanced neoplasia. Overall, one out of seven CTCs showed new relevant extra-colonic findings which may lead to further diagnostic/therapeutic work-up. Our results can be important for the informed consent procedure.

Colorectal Cancer Screening with Computed Tomography Colonography: Single Region Experience in Kazakhstan

Background/Aims

The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

A total of 612 females and 588 males aged 45 to 75 years were enrolled in CTC screening. CTC was performed following standard bowel preparation and colonic insufflation with carbon dioxide. The main outcomes were the detection rate of CRC and advanced adenoma (AA), prevalence of colorectal lesions in relation to socio-demographic and health factors, and overall diagnostic performance of CTC.

Results

Overall, 56.5% of the 1,200 invited subjects underwent CTC screening. The sensitivity for CRC and AA was 0.89 and 0.97, respectively, while the specificity was 0.71 and 0.99, respectively. The prevalence of CRC and AA was 3.0% (18/593) and 7.1% (42/593), respectively, with the highest CRC prevalence in the 66-75 age group (≥12 times; odds ratio [OR], 12.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.45-32.92). CRC and AA prevalence were inversely correlated with Asian descent, physical activity, and negative fecal immunochemical test results (OR=0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.83; OR=0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.68; OR=0.5; 95% CI, 0.07-3.85, respectively).

Conclusions

Our study revealed high accuracy of CTC in diagnosing colonic neoplasms, good compliance with CTC screening, and high detection rate of CRC.

Meeting the new joint British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology and Royal College of Radiologists CT colonography standards: a 6-year experience

AIM

To audit the performance of computed tomography colonography (CTC) at St Mark's Hospital against the joint British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (BSGAR) and Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) standards.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective audit of all CTC studies between January 2012 to December 2017 was performed against the BSGAR/RCR standards along with additional data outwith the guidelines. Evidence was obtained from a central database, radiology information systems (RISs), picture archiving and communication systems (PACSs), and electronic patient records (EPRs).

RESULTS

Over the 6 years, 13,143 CTCs were performed and 12,996 (99%) were adequate or better. Of the cases 1,867 had a >6 mm polyp or cancer reported (polyp identification rate [PIR] 14%) and the positive predictive value (PPV) was 93% (1,148/1,240). Median radiation dose was 458 mGy·cm, mean additional acquisition rate was 19% (2,505/13,143), subsequent endoscopy rate was 9% (1,222/13,143) and mean interpretation time for a negative study was 34.6 minutes. Nine perforations occurred (perforation rate of 0.068%) and one was symptomatic (symptomatic perforation rate of 0.008%). For suspected cancers, the same-day endoscopy rate was 27% (96/360) and same-day staging rate was 76% (272/360). Post-imaging colorectal cancer rates (PICRC) was 3.06 per 100 cancers detected and 0.23 per 1,000 CTCs. The service was always rated "good" or higher by patients.

CONCLUSION

This audit shows the CTC service at St Mark's Hospital to be safe and of sufficiently high quality to meet the BSGAR/RCR standards with most outcomes equal to or above the aspirational target. Areas for service and individual reader improvement were also identified.

Incidental urological findings in patients undergoing computed tomography colonography for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer

Objective:

To determine the rate of incidental urological findings in patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) colonography/CT colonoscopy (CTC) for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer.

Methods:

Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing CTC between January 2011 and December 2013. All patients with new incidental urological findings were included with their type and number of urological findings. These were stratified as per the colonography reporting and data system (C-RADS) criteria, and a note made of any further imaging, intervention and histology where appropriate.

Results:

Within the time period, n = 1891 CTCs were undertaken. Of these, n = 333 (17.6%) had an incidental urological finding and n = 41 of these patients had dual incidental urological pathologies. In total, n = 49 had significant pathology which required monitoring, further imaging, and medical or surgical intervention; n = 12 required further imaging. In n = 1, the imaging result led to a decision to operate and in n = 9 the results excluded the need for surgical intervention; n = 24 underwent operative intervention. The rates of incidental urological findings were similar to those quoted in literature.

Conclusion:

Our study demonstrates a 17.6% rate of incidental urological findings. Of all findings, 13.1% were deemed significant to warrant further investigation or intervention, and 7.2% of patients with urological findings required intervention. CTCs can adequately image renal masses and further imaging of renal masses did not change management. Level of evidence: 4

The yield and patient factors associated with CT colonography C-RADS results in a non-screening patient population

OBJECTIVES

To determine the proportion of diagnostic computed tomography colonography (CTC) Reporting and Data System (C-RADS) categories in a non-screening population, and which patient factors are associated with a positive CTC (C2-4), a non-diagnostic CTC (C0), and potentially relevant extracolonic findings (ECF, E3-4).

METHODS

Diagnostic CTCs performed at a single academic center from 2017 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. For each examination, the indications, age, sex, admission status, and C-RADS categories were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression was performed of patient demographic factors and clinical indications, with adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

1373 CTCs were included. The mean age was 66.4 ± 13 years (range 24-97). There were 782 women and 75 inpatients. The number of CTCs reported as C0-C4 were 194/1373 (14.1%), 970/1373 (70.6%), 77/1373 (5.6%), 86/1373 (6.3%), and 46/1373 (3.4%), respectively, and 134/1373 (9.8%), 960/1373 (69.9%), 173/1373 (12.6%), and 106/1373 (7.7%) CTCs were reported as E1-4, respectively. Factors that demonstrated the strongest associations were as follows: with C2-4, age groups 50-79 (OR 2.8, 95% confidence interval 1.4-6.1), 80-89 (6.2, 2.9-14.5) and ≥ 90 (7.6, 2.0-29.1), and inpatients (3.4, 1.8-6.4); with C0, age groups 50-79 (5.9, 2.2-24.4), 80-89 (9.8, 3.4-41.8), and ≥ 90 (22.5, 5.8-113.0), incomplete colonoscopy (3.2, 2.0-5.1) and melena or gastrointestinal bleeding (4.1, 1.8-9.4); and with E3-4, age groups 50-79 (1.6, 1.0-2.9), 80-89 (2.0, 1.1-3.9), and ≥ 90 (3.2, 1.2-8.8), and inpatients (2.3, 1.3-3.9).

CONCLUSION

Older age is increasingly associated with a positive test, a non-diagnostic test and potentially relevant ECF. Inpatients are also associated with positive tests and E3-4 findings. Symptoms are not strongly associated with a positive CTC.

Computed tomography colonography: a retrospective analysis of outcomes of 2 years experience in a district general hospital

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold-standard investigation for direct luminal visualization of the large bowel. Studies have shown the efficacy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) is equivalent to colonoscopy in both cancer and polyp detection.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing CTC from January 2013 to October 2014 was performed. Patient demographics, indication for investigation, computed tomography findings, optical colonoscopy findings and histology results were recorded.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and fifty-eight CTC were performed. Three hundred and seventeen patients were male (42%) and 441 (58%) were female. Endoscopy was advised in 209 cases. One hundred and twenty (16%) were deemed suspicious for cancer of whom 96 (80%) had optical colonoscopy. A total of 12 colorectal cancers were detected. Potential polyps were noted in 58 cases (8%). Forty-four patients underwent endoscopy (75%) and 17 polyps confirmed (38%). Two patients had foci of invasive cancer histologically. Significant extracolonic findings were identified in 60%, including five cases of gastric carcinomas. The most common other findings were gallstones and hernias.

CONCLUSION

The rate of colorectal cancer detection in this study was 2%. The rate of biopsy proven cancer was 10% following a suspicious colonogram. Endoscopic correlation was not obtained in 20% of cases of radiological suspicion. CTC is as efficacious as optical colonoscopy for colorectal cancer and polyp detection.

Incidentalomas in Spine and Spinal Cord Imaging

Incidentalomas are common in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine. These incidental findings (IFs) can be seen involving the spinal cord, nerve root, vertebral body, posterior arch and the extraspinal region. This review article describes the imaging findings, stratifies the IFs similar to the computed tomography (CT) colonography reporting and data system and briefly mentions the current recommendations for further evaluation and management of IFs. Radiologists are the first to detect these lesions, suggest further evaluation and management of IFs. It is therefore mandatory for them to be aware of recommendations in clinical practice in order to avoid increased patient anxiety, excessive healthcare expenditure and inadvertent therapeutic procedures.

Comparison of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes in a screening and diagnostic CT colonography population

PURPOSE

To compare the distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes between screening and diagnostic CT colonography (CTC) populations.

METHODS

388 consecutive patients (369 men, 19 women; mean ± SD age 67.8 ± 10 years) who underwent first-time CTC (4/2011-4/2017) at a Veteran's Affairs Medical Center were divided into screening (asymptomatic) or diagnostic (symptomatic) cohorts based on CTC indication. CTC reporting and data system E-scores for extracolonic findings were retrospectively assigned based on prospective CTC radiologic reports. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the association between E-scores and CTC indication. Electronic medical records of all patients with E3 or E4 scores were reviewed (median follow-up 2.8 years) to determine clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

68% (262/388) underwent screening and 32% (126/388) diagnostic CTC. 7.2% (28/388) had extracolonic findings considered potentially significant (E4), 4.4% (17/388) had indeterminate but likely unimportant findings (E3), and 88.4% (347/388) had normal or unimportant findings (E1 or E2). E-scores were not significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC when adjusted for age, gender, and prior imaging (p = 0.44). 4.6% (12/262) of patients with E3/E4 findings in the screening cohort demonstrated clinically significant outcomes, compared with 4.0% (5/126) in the diagnostic cohort, including a total of three extracolonic malignancies (0.8%) and three abdominal aortic aneurysms (0.8%). 4.6% (18/388) underwent follow-up imaging studies to confirm a benign outcome after detection of a category E3/E4 finding.

CONCLUSIONS

The distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC populations.

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.

Computed Tomography Colonography Less Costly Than Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening of Commercially Insured Patients

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) colonography's effectiveness, its associated patient advantages, and its potential role to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been demonstrated in previous research, but whether CT colonography has a cost advantage relative to optical colonoscopy for the commercially insured US population has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs of CRC screening using CT colonography or optical colonoscopy for commercially insured people in the United States.

METHODS

Using retrospective commercial healthcare claims data and peer-reviewed studies, we performed a simulated multiyear, matched-case comparison of the costs of CT and optical colonoscopies for CRC screening. We estimated commercial optical colonoscopy costs per screening based on the 2016 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database and ancillary services, such as bowel preparation, anesthesia, pathology, and complication costs. We developed 4 scenarios for CT colonography cost per screening using the ratio of commercial to Medicare fees, and calculated ancillary service and follow-up costs from payers' costs for these services when associated with optical colonoscopies. For comparison, we converted the costs per screening to the costs per screening year per person using real-world screening intervals that were obtained from peer-reviewed studies.

RESULTS

In 2016, the average optical colonoscopy screening cost for commercial payers was $2033 (N = 406,068), or $340 per screening year per person. With our highest-cost CT colonography scenario, CT colonography costs 22% less, or $265 per screening year, than optical colonoscopy, mostly because of the advantages for patients of no anesthesia and the greatly reduced use of pathology services.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CT colonography for CRC testing offers effective screening, patient-centered advantages, and lower costs compared with optical colonoscopy, and may be particularly appealing to the currently unscreened population with commercial health insurance. If the availability of CT colonography expands to meet the increased demand for it, CT colonography could cost up to 50% less than optical colonoscopy per screening year.

Structured reporting and quality control in CT colonography

Standardized recommended techniques for performing and reporting CT colonography (CTC) examinations were developed by a consensus of experts. Published reporting guidelines, known as the CT colonography reporting and data system supplemented by recently updated comprehensive recommendations were incorporated into the American College of Radiology (ACR) practice guidelines. The application of continuous quality improvement to the practice of CT was aided by the development of an ACR national data registry (NRDR) for CTC that addressed both process and outcome quality measures. These measures can be used to benchmark an institution's CTC practice as compared to all participants. This article will discuss the best practices for reporting CTC and describe the use of NRDR to foster quality CTC performance.

Post-imaging colorectal cancer or interval cancer rates after CT colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

CT colonography is highly sensitive for colorectal cancer, but interval or post-imaging colorectal cancer rates (diagnosis of cancer after initial negative CT colonography) are unknown, as are their underlying causes. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of post-CT colonography and post-imaging colorectal cancer rates and causes to address this gap in understanding.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomised, cohort, cross-sectional, or case-control studies published between Jan 1, 1994, and Feb 28, 2017, using CT colonography done according to international consensus standards with the aim of detecting cancer or polyps, and reporting post-imaging colorectal cancer rates or sufficient data to allow their calculation. We excluded studies in which all CT colonographies were done because of incomplete colonoscopy or if CT colonography was done with knowledge of colonoscopy findings. We contacted authors of component studies for additional data where necessary for retrospective CT colonography image review and causes for each post-imaging colorectal cancer. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the study reports. Our primary outcome was prevalence of post-imaging colorectal cancer 36 months after CT colonography. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled post-imaging colorectal cancer rates, expressed using the total number of cancers and total number of CT colonographies as denominators, and per 1000 person-years. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016042437.

FINDINGS

2977 articles were screened and 12 studies were eligible for analysis. These studies reported data for 19 867 patients (aged 18-96 years; of 11 590 with sex data available, 6532 [56%] were female) between March, 2002, and May, 2015. At a mean of 34 months' follow-up (range 3-128·4 months), CT colonography detected 643 colorectal cancers. 29 post-imaging colorectal cancers were subsequently diagnosed. The pooled post-imaging colorectal cancer rate was 4·42 (95% CI 3·03-6·42) per 100 cancers detected, corresponding to 1·61 (1·11-2·33) post-imaging colorectal cancers per 1000 CT colonographies or 0·64 (0·44-0·92) post-imaging colorectal cancers per 1000 person-years. Heterogeneity was low (I²=0%). 17 (61%) of 28 post-imaging colorectal cancers were attributable to perceptual error and were visible in retrospect.

INTERPRETATION

CT colonography does not lead to an excess of post-test cancers relative to colonoscopy within 3-5 years, and the low 5-year post-imaging colorectal cancer rate confirms that the recommended screening interval of 5 years is safe. Since most post-imaging colorectal cancers arise from perceptual errors, radiologist training and quality assurance could help to reduce post-imaging colorectal cancer rates.

FUNDING

St Mark's Hospital Foundation and the UK National Institute for Health Research via the UCL/UCLH Biomedical Research Centre.

Double-Balloon Endoscopy after Incomplete Colonoscopy and Its Comparison with Computed Tomography Colonography

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Because of the national screening program for colorectal carcinoma in The Netherlands, the number of colonoscopies has increased. In case of incomplete colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography (CTC) and double-balloon colonoscopy (DBc) are alternative options. This study evaluated cecal intubation rate and pathology detection rate in the previously unexplored part of the colon, complication rate of DBc, and CTC results after incomplete colonoscopy.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study in a tertiary referral hospital regarding DBc and CTC reports from cases with incomplete colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Sixty-three DBcs were performed after incomplete colonoscopy. Cecal intubation rate was 95%. Detection rate was 58% (5% carcinoma and 3% high-grade dysplastic adenoma). CTC preceded 54% of DBcs and 62% of CTC findings were confirmed. In 16%, a biopsy was taken, and in 60%, an intervention (mostly polypectomy) was performed. One major complication (1.5%) occurred, i.e., arterial bleeding due to polypectomy necessitating right hemicolectomy. CTC (n=213) showed a possible lesion in 35%, and could be confirmed by follow-up endoscopy or surgery in 65%.

CONCLUSIONS

DBc is effective and safe for completion of colon inspection in incomplete colonoscopy. In patients with a high likelihood of pathology, DBc is preferred over CTC.

Clinical Value of CT Colonography Versus Preoperative Colonoscopy in the Surgical Management of Occlusive Colorectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

CT colonography (CTC) has been recognized as a complementary approach to evaluating the entire colon after incomplete colonoscopy (IC) in patients with occlusive colorectal cancer (CRC). The objective of this study is to evaluate changes in preoperative surgical planning after CTC is performed for patients with occlusive CRC and IC in an oncologic hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 65 consecutive patients with occlusive CRC who underwent CTC after IC at our institution from February 2000 to April 2016. CTC examinations and radiology reports were reviewed by an abdominal radiologist. Clinical information was obtained from a review of the electronic medical record.

RESULTS

CTC contributed to a change in the initial surgical plan of the surgeon for 14 of 65 patients (21.5%). In these 14 patients, CTC detected five synchronous proximal colon polyps (35.7%), five synchronous proximal cancers (35.7%), two imprecise CRC locations (14.3%), one case of proximal colon ischemia (7.1%), and one instance of tumor infiltration of the urinary bladder (7.1%). All CTC findings were confirmed at surgery, and all proximal colon polyps were subsequently confirmed to be advanced adenomas.

CONCLUSION

The preoperative CTC findings optimized the surgical management plan for 21.5% of patients with occlusive CRC and IC.

Detection of potentially relevant extracolonic and colorectal findings at CT colonography in a low-risk symptomatic patient population

PURPOSE

CT colonography (CTC) is a widely accepted examination tool for detection of colorectal lesions but evidence of the proportions of relevant extracolonic findings (ECF) in a large symptomatic but still relatively low-risk cohort is lacking, as well as their relationship to symptoms, age, and sex.

METHODS

All patients (n = 3208) with colorectal symptoms, imaged between January 2007 and September 2016 with first-time CTC, were retrospectively selected. The majority (96.7%) was examined with low-dose unenhanced protocol. The most relevant ECF and colorectal lesions (≥6 mm) were prospectively assessed according to C-RADS classifications. Follow-up was elaborated based on the electronic record review. Chi-square test was utilized for evaluating the associations between relevant findings and symptoms, age, and sex.

RESULTS

A total of 270 (8.4%) patients were classified as C-RADS E3, 63 (2.0%) patients as C-RADS E4, and 437 (13.6%) patients were assessed with colorectal lesions (C-RADS C2-4). At follow-up, two thirds of ECF turned out to be a malignancy or relevant disease that required further medical attention. The proportion of ECF was not related to specific colorectal symptoms. Patients aged ≥65 years and men had significantly higher proportions of ECF than younger patients (C-RADS E3 p = 0.005; C-RADS E4 p < 0.001) and women (C-RADS E3 p = 0.013; C-RADS E4 p = 0.009), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Proportions of relevant ECF and colorectal findings are relatively low in symptomatic low-risk patients. By use of CTC as a singular examination, especially in elderly patients, most colonoscopies can be avoided with the benefit of diagnosing relevant ECF without introducing substantial over-diagnosis.

Trends in radiology and experimental research

European Radiology Experimental, the new journal launched by the European Society of Radiology, is placed in the context of three general and seven radiology-specific trends. After describing the impact of population aging, personalized/precision medicine, and information technology development, the article considers the following trends: the tension between subspecialties and the unity of the discipline; attention to patient safety; the challenge of reproducibility for quantitative imaging; standardized and structured reporting; search for higher levels of evidence in radiology (from diagnostic performance to patient outcome); the increasing relevance of interventional radiology; and continuous technological evolution. The new journal will publish not only studies on phantoms, cells, or animal models but also those describing development steps of imaging biomarkers or those exploring secondary end-points of large clinical trials. Moreover, consideration will be given to studies regarding: computer modelling and computer aided detection and diagnosis; contrast materials, tracers, and theranostics; advanced image analysis; optical, molecular, hybrid and fusion imaging; radiomics and radiogenomics; three-dimensional printing, information technology, image reconstruction and post-processing, big data analysis, teleradiology, clinical decision support systems; radiobiology; radioprotection; and physics in radiology. The journal aims to establish a forum for basic science, computer and information technology, radiology, and other medical subspecialties.

Prevalence and risk factors for post-investigation colorectal cancer ("interval cancer") after computed tomographic colonography: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and important disease. There are different tests for diagnosis, one of which is computed tomographic colonography (CTC). No test is perfect, and patients with normal CTC may subsequently develop CRC (either because it was overlooked originally, or because it has developed in the interim). This is termed post-investigation colorectal cancer (PICRC) or "interval cancer". How frequently this occurs after CTC is not known. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to use the primary literature to estimate the PICRC rate after CTC, and explore associated factors.

METHODS

Primary studies reporting post-investigation colorectal cancer (PICRC) rates after CTC will be identified from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases. Peer-reviewed studies published after 1994 (the year CTC was introduced) will be included and the rate of PICRC within 36 months of CTC recorded. Data will be extracted from selected studies for a random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity, risk of bias and publication bias will be assessed, and exploratory analysis will examine factors associated with higher PICRC rates in the literature.

CONCLUSION

PICRC rates are the ultimate benchmark of diagnostic quality for colonic investigations. This systematic review and meta-analysis will identify and synthesise evidence to determine PICRC rates after CTC and explore factors that may contribute to higher rates.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (registration number CRD42016042437 ).

Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections: Incidental Extraspinal Findings on Planning Imaging

OBJECTIVE

Planning imaging performed during CT-guided procedures may occasionally contain important incidental findings. The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize by clinical relevance the extraspinal findings detected on planning imaging for CT-guided lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four radiologists retrospectively evaluated the planning scout views and CT studies for 488 consecutive CT-guided lumbar TFESIs performed in 400 patients over a 1-year period. Incidental extraspinal findings were identified and used to characterize patients by the need for follow-up using the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS), a classification scheme originally developed to characterize incidental findings on CT colonography. Patients with C-RADS E4 findings have potentially important findings that should be communicated to the referring physician; patients with C-RADS E3 findings have findings that are likely unimportant, but workup may be indicated. All previously unknown C-RADS E3 and E4 findings discovered in the course of this research were reported to referring physicians for appropriate patient follow-up.

RESULTS

Ten of 400 (2.5%) patients were classified as C-RADS E4; the most common C-RADS E4 finding was vascular aneurysm or stenosis (4/400, 1.0%). Thirteen of 400 (3.3%) patients were classified as C-RADS E3; the most common C-RADS E3 finding was hepatomegaly (4/400, 1.0%). Of 22 patients with C-RADS E3 and E4 findings unknown to clinicians, the finding for only one (4.5%) was communicated to clinicians at the time of the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Clinically important incidental extraspinal findings were identified in 5.8% of patients on the planning imaging performed for CT-guided lumbar TFESIs. Communication of clinically important findings was poor (4.5%).

Colorectal Findings at Repeat CT Colonography Screening after Initial CT Colonography Screening Negative for Polyps Larger than 5 mm

Purpose To determine the rate and types of polyps detected at repeat computed tomographic (CT) colonography screening after initial negative findings at CT colonography screening. Materials and Methods Among 5640 negative CT colonography screenings (no polyps ≥ 6 mm) performed before 2010 at one medical center, 1429 (25.3%; mean age, 61.4 years; 736 women, 693 men) patients have returned for repeat CT colonography screening (mean interval, 5.7 years ± 0.9; range, 4.5-10.7 years). Positive rates and histologic findings of initial and repeat screening were compared in this HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study. For all patients with positive findings at repeat CT colonography, the findings were directly compared against the initial CT colonography findings. Fisher exact, Pearson χ², and Student t tests were applied as indicated. Results Repeat CT colonography screening was positive for lesions 6 mm or larger in 173 (12.1%) adults (compared with 14.3% at initial CT colonography screening, P = .29). In the 173 patients, 29.5% (61 of 207) of nondiminutive polyps could be identified as diminutive at the initial CT colonography and 12.6% (26 of 207) were missed. Large polyps, advanced neoplasia (advanced adenomas and cancer), and invasive cancer were seen in 3.8% (55 of 1429), 2.8% (40 of 1429), and 0.14% (two of 1429), respectively, at follow-up, compared with 5.2% (P = .02), 3.2% (P = .52), and 0.45% (P = .17), respectively, at initial screening. Of 42 advanced lesions in 40 follow-up screenings, 33 (78.6%) were right sided and 22 (52.4%) were flat, compared with 45.4% (P < .001) and 11.3% (P < .001), respectively, at initial screening. Large right-sided serrated lesions were confirmed in 20 individuals (1.4%), compared with 0.5% (P < .001) confirmed at initial screening. Conclusion Positive rates for large polyps at repeat CT colonography screening (3.7%) were lower compared with those at initial screening (5.2%). However, more advanced right-sided lesions were detected at follow-up CT colonography, many of which were flat, serrated lesions. The cumulative findings support both the nonreporting of diminutive lesions and a 5-10-year screening interval. ^© RSNA, 2016 An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on August 30, 2016.

Indeterminate but Likely Unimportant Extracolonic Findings at Screening CT Colonography (C-RADS Category E3): Incidence and Outcomes Data From a Clinical Screening Program

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the incidence and outcomes of unsuspected indeterminate but likely unimportant extracolonic findings (CT Colonography Reporting and Data System [C-RADS] category E3) at screening CT colonography (CTC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over 99 months (April 2004 through June 2012), 7952 consecutive adults without symptoms of colorectal cancer (4277 women, 3675 men; mean age ± SD, 56.7 ± 7.3 years) underwent first-time screening CTC. Findings prospectively placed into C-RADS category E3 were retrospectively reviewed, including follow-up (range, 2-10 years) and ultimate clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Unsuspected C-RADS category E3 extracolonic findings were detected in 9.1% (725/7952) of our patient population. A total of 751 category E3 findings were detected among these 725 patients; 25 patients had multiple findings. Commonly involved organ systems included gynecologic (24.4%, 183/751), genitourinary (20.9%, 157/751), lung (20.6%, 155/751), and gastrointestinal (16.1%, 121/751). Consideration for further imaging, if clinically warranted, was suggested in 83.8% (608/725). Sixty-five patients were lost to follow-up. Conditions requiring treatment or surveillance were ultimately diagnosed in 8.3% (55/660), including eight malignant neoplasms. In the remaining 605 patients, 25 (4.1%) underwent invasive biopsy or surgery to prove benignity (including 18 complex adnexal masses), and 278 (46.0%) received additional imaging follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Indeterminate but likely unimportant extracolonic findings (C-RADS category E3) occurred in less than 10% of adults without symptoms of colorectal cancer who underwent screening CTC. Over 90% of these findings ultimately proved to be clinically insignificant, with fewer than 5% requiring an invasive procedure to prove benign disease, the majority of which (> 70%) were complex adnexal lesions in women.

Colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer had a low incidence several decades ago. However, it has become a predominant cancer and now accounts for approximately 10% of cancer-related mortality in western countries. The 'rise' of colorectal cancer in developed countries can be attributed to the increasingly ageing population, unfavourable modern dietary habits and an increase in risk factors, such as smoking, low physical exercise and obesity. New treatments for primary and metastatic colorectal cancer have emerged, providing additional options for patients; these treatments include laparoscopic surgery for primary disease, more-aggressive resection of metastatic disease (such as liver and pulmonary metastases), radiotherapy for rectal cancer, and neoadjuvant and palliative chemotherapies. However, these new treatment options have had limited impact on cure rates and long-term survival. For these reasons, and the recognition that colorectal cancer is long preceded by a polypoid precursor, screening programmes have gained momentum. This Primer provides an overview of the current state of the art of knowledge on the epidemiology and mechanisms of colorectal cancer, as well as on diagnosis and treatment.

Potentially Important Extracolonic Findings at Screening CT Colonography: Incidence and Outcomes Data From a Clinical Screening Program

OBJECTIVE

The effect of detection of extracolonic findings at screening CT colonography (CTC) remains controversial. Our objective is to analyze the incidence and outcomes of unsuspected potentially significant (CT Colonography Reporting and Data System [C-RADS] extracolonic category E4) findings in a population undergoing clinical CTC screening.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Over the course of 99 months (April 1, 2004, through June 30, 2012), 7952 consecutive asymptomatic adults (3675 men and 4277 women; mean [± SD] age, 56.7 ± 7.3 years) underwent first-time screening CTC. Examinations were prospectively interpreted by radiologists within our abdominal imaging section, and extracolonic findings were recorded and categorized. Potentially significant (i.e., C-RADS extracolonic category E4) findings were retrospectively reviewed with additional analysis of follow-up (range, 2-10 years) and ultimate clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, 2.5% (202/7952) of patients had a potentially significant (C-RADS category E4) extracolonic finding for which further imaging (56%; 113/202) or clinical follow-up (44%; 89/202) was recommended. No patients had multiple category E4 findings. Twenty-two patients were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 180 patients, 68% (123/180) proved to have clinically significant disease, including 23% (42/180) with malignant or potentially malignant neoplasms and 32% (57/180) with abdominal aortic or other visceral artery aneurysms requiring treatment or surveillance. The most commonly involved organs and systems included the vascular system (26%; 53/202), the genitourinary system (18%; 36/202), the liver (15%; 30/202), the gastrointestinal system (9.9%; 20/202), the lungs (9.4%; 19/202), and the gynecologic system (6.9%; 14/202).

CONCLUSION

Potentially significant extracolonic findings in asymptomatic adults at screening CTC are uncommon (2-3% of cases). However, most of these findings (68%) will prove to be clinically significant, including a number of malignancies and aneurysms requiring treatment or surveillance.

Recent developments in colorectal imaging

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to provide an update on important recent advances in radiologic colorectal imaging, with emphasis on detection, staging, and surveillance of colorectal neoplasia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Colorectal imaging advances with magnetic resonance (MR), computed tomography colonography (CTC), and positron emission tomography (PET) over the past year or so have been substantial. Progress in MRI for rectal cancer was most notable in terms of assessment of response to neoadjuvant therapy. Continued maturation and clinical validation of CTC was observed for the evaluation of advanced neoplasia, among other areas. Multimodality approaches to colorectal imaging that incorporate functional PET data have also made impressive strides forward.

SUMMARY

Recent advances in cross-sectional and functional radiologic imaging of the colorectum will positively impact the clinical capabilities for noninvasive evaluation of colorectal neoplasia.