[Colorectal cancer screening with virtual colonography]

BACKGROUND

Since 2003, a decline in the age-standardized incidence rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been observed in Germany. Nonetheless, one in eight cancer cases still affects the colon or rectum. The prognosis has improved, with the relative 5‑year survival rate for CRC being approximately 65%.

METHODS

This positive trend is probably a result of preventive measures introduced over the last 20 years. This could be further improved, however, as CRC can not only be detected early but in almost all cases also prevented through the identification of benign precursors. Less than half of all eligible individuals participate in screening via colonoscopy. This implies that further, possibly even imaging, screening test methods should be explored and offered. Studies have reported that virtual colonography techniques have a comparable accuracy to endoscopy of about 90% for polyp sizes larger than 5 mm. The data for computed tomography (CT) is more extensive than for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

CONCLUSION

Significant challenges are posed however by the fact that in Germany CT colonography (CTC) is not considered a viable screening option due to radiation protection concerns, and MRI screening is not an established screening method. Radiologists should be familiar with classification using the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS), which uses criteria such as CT density, morphology, size, and location for classification. C‑RADS classification follows the categories: C0 (inadequate study), C1 (normal), C2a (indeterminate), C2b (benign), C3 (suspicious), and C4 (malignant), as well as extracolonic categories E1/2 (no clinically significant findings), E3 (likely insignificant findings), and E4 (likely significant findings).

Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Prevention

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide. There are disparities in the epidemiology of CRC across different populations, most probably due to differences in exposure to lifestyle and environmental factors related to CRC. Prevention is the most effective method for controlling CRC. Primary prevention includes determining and avoiding modifiable risk factors (e.g., alcohol consumption, smoking, and dietary factors) as well as increasing protective factors (e.g., physical activity, aspirin). Further studies, especially randomized, controlled trials, are needed to clarify the association between CRC incidence and exposure to different risk factors or protective factors. Detection and removal of precancerous colorectal lesions is also an effective strategy for controlling CRC. Multiple factors, both at the individual and community levels (e.g., patient preferences, availability of screening modalities, costs, benefits, and adverse events), should be taken into account in designing and implementing CRC screening programs. Health policymakers should consider the best decision in identifying the starting age and selection of the most effective screening strategies for the target population. This review aims to present updated evidence on the epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention of CRC.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Practice Guidelines for Computed Tomography Colonography

Colon cancer is the third most common malignancy in Canada. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) provides a creditable and validated option for colon screening and assessment of known pathology in patients for whom conventional colonoscopy is contraindicated or where patients self-select to use imaging as their primary modality for initial colonic assessment. This updated guideline aims to provide a toolkit for both experienced imagers (and technologists) and for those considering launching this examination in their practice. There is guidance for reporting, optimal exam preparation, tips for problem solving to attain high quality examinations in challenging scenarios as well as suggestions for ongoing maintenance of competence. We also provide insight into the role of artificial intelligence and the utility of CTC in tumour staging of colorectal cancer. The appendices provide more detailed guidance into bowel preparation and reporting templates as well as useful information on polyp stratification and management strategies. Reading this guideline should equip the reader with the knowledge base to perform colonography but also provide an unbiased overview of its role in colon screening compared with other screening options.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy - Shining the Light through the Colon

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a non-invasive, wireless capsule endoscope. In this article, we review its current applications, compare its performance with optical colonoscopy (OC) and alternative imaging modalities like CT colonography (CTC), and highlight developments that may increase potential future use.

RECENT FINDINGS

By comparison to OC both CCE and CTC have a good sensitivity and specificity in detecting colonic polyps. CCE is more sensitive in detecting sub centimetre polyps. CCE is capable of detecting colonic inflammation and anorectal pathologies, commonly missed by CTC. However, rates of complete CCE examinations are limited by inadequate bowel preparation or incomplete colonic transit, whereas CTC can be performed with less bowel purgatives. Patients tolerate CCE better than OC, however patient preference between CCE and CTC vary. CCE and CTC are both reasonable alternatives to OC. Strategies to improve completion rates and adequacy of bowel preparation will improve cost and clinical effectiveness of CCE.

Should we screen for colorectal cancer in people aged 75 and over? A systematic review - collaborative work of the French geriatric oncology society (SOFOG) and the French federation of digestive oncology (FFCD)

BACKGROUND

We have done a systematic literature review about CRC Screening over 75 years old in order to update knowledge and make recommendations.

METHODS

PUBMED database was searched in October 2021 for articles published on CRC screening in the elderly, and generated 249 articles. Further searches were made to find articles on the acceptability, efficacy, and harms of screening in this population, together with the state of international guidelines.

RESULTS

Most benefit-risk data on CRC screening in the over 75 s derived from simulation studies. Most guidelines recommend stopping cancer screening at the age of 75. In private health systems, extension of screening up to 80-85 years is, based on the life expectancy and the history of screening. Screening remains effective in populations without comorbidity given their better life-expectancy. Serious adverse events of colonoscopy increase with age and can outweigh the benefit of screening. The great majority of reviews concluded that screening between 75 and 85 years must be decided case by case.

CONCLUSION

The current literature does not allow Evidence-Based Medicine propositions for mass screening above 75 years old. As some subjects over 75 years may benefit from CRC screening, we discussed ways to introduce CRC screening in France in the 75-80 age group. IRB: An institutional review board composed of members of the 2 learned societies (SOFOG and FFCD) defined the issues of interest, followed the evolution of the work and reviewed and validated the report.

An AI-Based Colonic Polyp Classifier for Colorectal Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Abdominal CT

Among the non-invasive Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening approaches, Computed Tomography Colonography (CTC) and Virtual Colonoscopy (VC), are much more accurate. This work proposes an AI-based polyp detection framework for virtual colonoscopy (VC). Two main steps are addressed in this work: automatic segmentation to isolate the colon region from its background, and automatic polyp detection. Moreover, we evaluate the performance of the proposed framework on low-dose Computed Tomography (CT) scans. We build on our visualization approach, Fly-In (FI), which provides "filet"-like projections of the internal surface of the colon. The performance of the Fly-In approach confirms its ability with helping gastroenterologists, and it holds a great promise for combating CRC. In this work, these 2D projections of FI are fused with the 3D colon representation to generate new synthetic images. The synthetic images are used to train a RetinaNet model to detect polyps. The trained model has a 94% f1-score and 97% sensitivity. Furthermore, we study the effect of dose variation in CT scans on the performance of the the FI approach in polyp visualization. A simulation platform is developed for CTC visualization using FI, for regular CTC and low-dose CTC. This is accomplished using a novel AI restoration algorithm that enhances the Low-Dose CT images so that a 3D colon can be successfully reconstructed and visualized using the FI approach. Three senior board-certified radiologists evaluated the framework for the peak voltages of 30 KV, and the average relative sensitivities of the platform were 92%, whereas the 60 KV peak voltage produced average relative sensitivities of 99.5%.

Effectiveness and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies

Colorectal cancer screening incorporates various testing modalities. Factors including effectiveness, harms, cost, screening interval, patient preferences, and test availability should be considered when determining which test to use. Fecal occult blood testing and endoscopic screening have the most robust evidence, while newer blood- and imaging-based techniques require further evaluation. In this review, we compare the effectiveness, harms, and costs of the various screening strategies.

Clinical characteristics, medical service utilization, and expenditure for colorectal cancer in China, 2005 to 2014: Overall design and results from a multicenter retrospective epidemiologic survey

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in China, however, publicly available, descriptive information on the clinical epidemiology of CRC is limited.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with primary CRC during 2005 through 2014 were sampled from 13 tertiary hospitals in 9 provinces across China. Data related to sociodemographic characteristics, the use of diagnostic technology, treatment adoption, and expenditure were extracted from individual medical records.

RESULTS

In the full cohort of 8465 patients, the mean ± SD age at diagnosis was 59.3 ± 12.8 years, 57.2% were men, and 58.7% had rectal cancer. On average, 14.4% of patients were diagnosed with stage IV disease, and this proportion increased from 13.5% in 2005 to 20.5% in 2014 (P value for trend < .05). For diagnostic techniques, along with less use of x-rays (average, 81.6%; decreased from 90.0% to 65.7%), there were increases in the use of computed tomography (average, 70.4%; increased from 4.5% to 90.5%) and magnetic resonance imaging (average, 8.8%; increased from 0.1% to 20.4%) over the study period from 2005 to 2014. With regard to treatment, surgery alone was the most common (average, 50.1%), but its use decreased from 51.3% to 39.8% during 2005 through 2014; and the use of other treatments increased simultaneously, such as chemotherapy alone (average, 4.1%; increased from 4.1% to 11.9%). The average medical expenditure per patient was 66,291 Chinese Yuan (2014 value) and increased from 47,259 to 86,709 Chinese Yuan.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing proportion of late-stage diagnoses presents a challenge for CRC control in China. Changes in diagnostic and treatment options and increased expenditures are clearly illustrated in this study. Coupled with the recent introduction of screening initiatives, these data provide an understanding of changes over time and may form a benchmark for future related evaluations of CRC interventions in China.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020

1: ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 - 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Use of Screening CT Colonography by Age and Race: A Study of Potential Access Barriers Related to Medicare Noncoverage Based on Data From the ACR's National CT Colonography Registry

OBJECTIVE

The primary objectives of this investigation were to evaluate the use of screening CT colonography (CTC) examinations by age comparing individuals of Medicare-eligible age to younger cohorts and to determine if the association between use of CTC and Medicare-eligible age varies by race. Although the Affordable Care Act requires commercial insurance coverage of screening CTC, Medicare does not cover screening CTC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the ACR's CTC registry, the distribution of procedures by age was evaluated using a negative binomial model with patient age (to capture overall trend), indicator of Medicare-eligible age (to capture immediate changes in trend at age 65), and their interaction (to capture gradual changes after age 65) as independent variables. The association between the number of screening CTCs and age was compared by racial identity.

RESULTS

The CTC registry contained data on 12,648 screening examinations. Between ages 52 and 64, the number of screening examinations increased; each additional age year was associated with a 5.3% (P < .001) increase in the number of screenings. However, after age 65, the number of screening examinations decreased by -6.9% per additional year of age above 65 compared with the trend between ages 52 and 64 (P < .001). The modal age group for CTC use was 65 to 69 years in white and 55 to 59 in black individuals.

CONCLUSION

After age 65, the number of screening CTC examinations decreased, likely due, at least in part, to lack of Medicare coverage. Medicare noncoverage may have a disproportionate impact on black patients and other racial minorities.

Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer: a diagnostic performance study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the reference standard for the detection of colorectal cancer but it is an invasive technique and has the risk of bowel perforation and bleeding. Unlike colonoscopy, sedation is not required in computed tomography colonography and requires additional reassurance endoscopy. The objectives of the study were to compare the diagnostic performance of computed tomography colonography against colonoscopy for a diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Data regarding any polyp ≥10 mm diameter (ø) and < 10 mm ø but suspicious polyps of computed tomography colonography (n = 318), colonoscopy (n = 318), and surgical pathology (n = 77) for symptomatic colorectal cancer patients were collected and analyzed. Lesion ulceration, extramural invasion, and/ or lesion shouldering was considered as a suspicious polyp. Beneficial scores for decision making of curative surgeries were evaluated for each modality. The cost of diagnosis of colorectal cancer was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Either of diagnosis showed polyps ≥10 mm ø in 27 patients and polyps of 50 patients were < 10 mm ø but suspicious. Therefore, a total of 77 patients were subjected to surgery. With respect to surgical pathology, sensitivities for computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy were 0.961 and 0.831. For detection of ≥10 mm ø polyp, benefit score for computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy were 0-0.906 diagnostic confidence and 0.035-0.5 diagnostic confidence. For polyps, ≥ 10 mm ø but not too many large polyps, colonoscopy had the risk of underdiagnosis. For < 10 mm ø but suspicious polyps, < 0.6 mm ø and < 2.2 mm ⌀ polyps could not be detected by computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy, respectively. The computed tomographic colonography had less cost than colonoscopy (1345 ± 135 ¥/ patient vs. 1715 ± 241 ¥/ patient, p < 0.0001) for diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Computed tomographic colonography would be a non-inferior alternative than colonoscopy for a diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Comparison of two Meglumine-Diatrizoate based bowel preparations for computed tomography colonography: Comparison of patient symptoms and bowel preparation quality

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the impact of two Meglumine-Diatrizoate based bowel preparation regimes for computed tomography colonography (CTC) on the patient experience and image quality.

METHODS

100 patients consumed Meglumine-Diatrizoate at 24 h and 12 h prior to the CTC examination. 50 patients followed regime 1 (50:50), 50 ml of Meglumine-Diatrizoate at both 24 and 12 h prior to the examination. 50 patients followed regime 2 (75:25), 75 ml of Meglumine-Diatrizoate at 24 h prior to the examination and 25 ml of Meglumine-Diatrizoate at 12 h prior to the examination. All patients completed a questionnaire to indicate the time of onset of adverse effects and when they were most severe. Five advanced practitioners assessed the image quality in a visual grading study. Visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis was applied with regime 1 as the reference condition and regime 2 and test condition; test alpha was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Image quality was assessed with successful bowel cleansing as the scoring criteria for the visual grading study. The bowel cleansing as provided by the two Meglumine-Diatrizoate regimes was revealed not to be statistically different, with the area under the VGC curve and 95% confidence intervals 0.487 (0.287, 0.701), p = 0.887. Patients taking the 75:25 bowel preparation experienced a shorter median time to the onset of adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

There was no observed difference in Image quality criteria score for the two Meglumine-Diatrizoate based bowel preparation with more predictable adverse effects of Meglumine-Diatrizoate with the 75:25 preparation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Providing patients with a higher contrast burden 24 h prior to CTC may have a positive impact on the patient experience without compromising image quality.

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.