Colonic preparation for computed tomographic colonography: understanding the relative advantages and disadvantages of a noncathartic approach

CT colonography after incomplete optical colonoscopy: bowel preparation quality at same-day vs. deferred examination

PURPOSE

To objectively compare the volume, density, and distribution of luminal fluid for same-day oral-contrast-enhanced CTC following incomplete optical colonoscopy (OC) vs. deferred CTC on a separate day utilizing a dedicated CTC bowel preparation.

METHODS

HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved retrospective study compared 103 same-day CTC studies after incomplete OC (utilizing 30 mL oral diatrizoate) against 151 CTC examinations performed on a separate day after failed OC using a dedicated CTC bowel preparation (oral magnesium citrate/dilute barium/diatrizoate the evening before). A subgroup of 15 patients who had both same-day CTC and separate-day routine CTC was also identified and underwent separate analysis. CTC exams were analyzed for opacified fluid distribution within the GI tract, as well as density and volume. Data were analyzed utilizing Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests.

RESULTS

Opacified luminal fluid extended to the rectum in 56% (58/103) of same-day CTC vs. 100% (151/151) of deferred separate-day CTC (p < 0.0001). For same-day CTC, contrast failed to reach the colon in 11% (11/103) and failed to reach the left colon in 26% (27/103). Volumetric colonic fluid segmentation for fluid analysis (successful in 80 same-day and 147 separate-day cases) showed significantly more fluid in the same-day cohort (mean, 227 vs. 166 mL; p < 0.0001); the actual difference is underestimated due to excluded cases. Mean colonic fluid attenuation was significantly lower in the same-day cohort (545 vs. 735 HU; p < 0.0001). Similar findings were identified in the smaller cohort with direct intra-patient CTC comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicated CTC bowel preparation on a separate day following incomplete OC results in a much higher quality examination compared with same-day CTC.

Automated volumetric analysis for comparison of oral sulfate solution (SUPREP) with established cathartic agents at CT colonography

PURPOSE

To objectively compare residual colonic fluid volume and attenuation of oral sulfate solution (OSS) with four different established cathartic regimens using an automated volumetric software tool at CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval. Volumetric analysis of residual contrast-tagged colonic fluid was performed on CTC studies in 263 adults (mean age 60.1 years; 137M/126F) using an automated volumetric software tool. Twenty-three patients receiving 177 mL OSS (SUPREP; single-bottle purgation) were compared with 60 patients each receiving 45 mL sodium phosphate (NaP), 90 mL NaP (2× NaP), 592 mL (two bottles) magnesium citrate (MgC), and 4,000 mL polyethylene glycol (PEG). All patients received oral contrast cleansing after catharsis. Data were analyzed with unpaired t test with Welch correction and F test.

RESULTS

The mean volume of residual colonic fluid was less with OSS (125 ± 60 mL) than for established cathartic agents: 2× NaP (206 ± 125 mL, P < 0.0001), MgC (184 ± 125 mL, P < 0.01), PEG (166 ± 114 mL, P < 0.05), and NaP (165 ± 135 mL, P = 0.067). Variance of volumes was also significantly lower for OSS (range 28-251 mL) than for established agents (range 4-853 mL) (all P < 0.01). Mean fluid attenuation was higher with OSS (956 ± 168 HU) than for established agents (all P < 0.05): 2× NaP (455 ± 191 HU), MgC (691 ± 154 HU), NaP (779 ± 127 HU), and PEG (843 ± 193 HU).

CONCLUSIONS

Automated volumetry allows rapid objective assessment of bowel preparation quality at CTC. Purgation with the novel oral sulfate solution (SUPREP) consistently resulted in less residual colonic fluid and higher fluid attenuation compared with established cathartic regimens.

Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing

Objectives

Compare public perceptions and intentions to undergo colorectal cancer screening tests following detailed information regarding CT colonography (CTC; after non-laxative preparation or full-laxative preparation), optical colonoscopy (OC) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

Methods

A total of 3,100 invitees approaching screening age (45-54 years) were randomly allocated to receive detailed information on a single test and asked to return a questionnaire. Outcomes included perceptions of preparation and test tolerability, health benefits, sensitivity and specificity, and intention to undergo the test.

Results

Six hundred three invitees responded with valid questionnaire data. Non-laxative preparation was rated more positively than enema or full-laxative preparations [effect size (r) = 0.13 to 0.54; p < 0.0005 to 0.036]; both forms of CTC and FS were rated more positively than OC in terms of test experience (r = 0.26 to 0.28; all p-values < 0.0005). Perceptions of health benefits, sensitivity and specificity (p = 0.250 to 0.901), and intention to undergo the test (p = 0.213) did not differ between tests (n = 144-155 for each test).

Conclusions

Despite non-laxative CTC being rated more favourably, this study did not find evidence that offering it would lead to substantially higher uptake than full-laxative CTC or other methods. However, this study was limited by a lower than anticipated response rate.

Key Points

• Improving uptake of colorectal cancer screening tests could improve health benefits

• Potential invitees rate CTC and flexible sigmoidoscopy more positively than colonoscopy

• Non-laxative bowel preparation is rated better than enema or full-laxative preparations

• These positive perceptions alone may not be sufficient to improve uptake

• Health benefits and accuracy are rated similarly for preventative screening tests

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3187-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quantifying public preferences for different bowel preparation options prior to screening CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

CT colonography (CTC) may be an acceptable test for colorectal cancer screening but bowel preparation can be a barrier to uptake. This study tested the hypothesis that prospective screening invitees would prefer full-laxative preparation with higher sensitivity and specificity for polyps, despite greater burden, over less burdensome reduced-laxative or non-laxative alternatives with lower sensitivity and specificity.

DESIGN

Discrete choice experiment.

SETTING

Online, web-based survey.

PARTICIPANTS

2819 adults (45-54 years) from the UK responded to an online invitation to take part in a cancer screening study. Quota sampling ensured that the sample reflected key demographics of the target population and had no relevant bowel disease or medical qualifications. The analysis comprised 607 participants.

INTERVENTIONS

After receiving information about screening and CTC, participants completed 3-4 choice scenarios. Scenarios showed two hypothetical forms of CTC with different permutations of three attributes: preparation, sensitivity and specificity for polyps.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants considered the trade-offs in each scenario and stated their preferred test (or chose neither).

RESULTS

Preparation and sensitivity for polyps were both significant predictors of preferences (coefficients: -3.834 to -6.346 for preparation, 0.207-0.257 for sensitivity; p<0.0005). These attributes predicted preferences to a similar extent. Realistic specificity values were non-significant (-0.002 to 0.025; p=0.953). Contrary to our hypothesis, probabilities of selecting tests were similar for realistic forms of full-laxative, reduced-laxative and non-laxative preparations (0.362-0.421). However, they were substantially higher for hypothetical improved forms of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparations with better sensitivity for polyps (0.584-0.837).

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of CTC following non-laxative or reduced-laxative preparations is unlikely to be greater than following full-laxative preparation as perceived gains from reduced burden may be diminished by reduced sensitivity. However, both attributes are important so a more sensitive form of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparation might improve uptake substantially.

Missed lesions at CT colonography: lessons learned

Misinterpretation at CT colonography (CTC) can result in either a colorectal lesion being missed (false-negative) or a false-positive diagnosis. This review will largely focus on potential missed lesions-and ways to avoid such misses. The general causes of false-negative interpretation at CTC can be broadly characterized and grouped into discrete categories related to suboptimal study technique, specific lesion characteristics, anatomic location, and imaging artifacts. Overlapping causes further increase the likelihood of missing a clinically relevant lesion. In the end, if the technical factors of bowel preparation, colonic distention, and robust CTC software are adequately addressed on a consistent basis, and the reader is aware of all the potential pitfalls at CTC, important lesions will seldom be missed.

CT colonography: pitfalls in interpretation

As with any radiologic imaging test, there are several potential interpretive pitfalls at CT colonography that need to be recognized and handled appropriately. Perhaps the single most important step in learning to avoid most of these diagnostic traps is simply to be aware of their existence. With a little experience, most of these potential pitfalls are easily recognized. This article systematically covers the key pitfalls confronting the radiologist at CT colonography interpretation, primarily dividing them into those related to technique and those related to underlying anatomy. Tips and pointers for how to effectively handle these potential pitfalls are included.

Performance improvements of imaging-based screening tests

Endoscopic and radiologic tests appear to be more accurate than stool-tests in detecting advanced neoplasia because of direct visualisation of colorectal mucosa. Further technological advances are expected to improve the performance and acceptability of these tests. Several attempts at increasing the adenoma detection rate of colonoscopy have been tested, and in vivo histologic differentiation between neoplastic and hyperplastic polyps may lead to substantial saving in economic and medical resources. Low-volume and non-cathartic bowel preparations may improve CT colonography acceptability, whilst computer-aided detection and low-dose protocols may result in a higher accuracy and safety of this procedure. Despite the lack of ionising radiation, significant drawbacks will likely to limit the role of MR colonography in screening programs. Colon capsule endoscopy appears to be a safe and technically feasible procedure. The suboptimal accuracy of the first generation seems to be substantially improved by the second generation of this device.

Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the computed tomographic colonography (CTC) image quality and patient acceptance of three iodine-based faecal tagging bowel preparations in 60 patients undergoing the following regimens: a 2-day regimen of meal-time administration of iodine and phospho-soda (GFPH); a 2-day regimen of meal-time mild laxative, followed by iodine administered 2 h before CTC (SD); and a 2-day regimen of meal-time administration of iodine (GF).

METHODS

Two independent radiologists assessed tagging quality; quantitative measures included the tagged stool density, and computer-aided detection (CAD) false-positive rate.

RESULTS

The GFPH and SD regimens provided better subjective quality than GF (p < 0.001). The latter regimen resulted in a higher proportion of insufficiently tagged segments: the measured average stool density was less than 200 HU in 10.7% in all segments vs 3.6% for SD and <0.5% for GFPH, respectively. Insufficient tagging occurred mostly in the ascending colon and the caecum. The CAD false-positive rate increased following the trend: GFPH < SD < GF (p = 0.00012). GFPH was worse tolerated than SD (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering preparation quality alone, GFPH was the best regimen, but SD provided the best balance between bowel preparation quality and patient acceptability.