CT colonography: Unraveling the twists and turns

Current Opinion in Gastroenterology

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 90-98

  Fletcher, J G ^a,b   Booya, Fargol ^a   Johnson, C Daniel ^a   Ahlquist, David ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Colon; Colon cancer; Colorectal screening; CT

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; AVERSION; CANCER SCREENING; COLONOSCOPY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM EXAMINATION; DIGESTIVE TRACT ENDOSCOPY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RADIOLOGIST; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TREATMENT INDICATION;

COLONIC NEOPLASMS; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 13244255664     PISSN: 02671379     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Pickhardt PJ, Choi CR, Hwang I, et al.: Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:2191-2200. First large prospective screening study of CT colonography demonstrating performance on par with colonoscopy. Unique features of this study included exclusion of surveillance patients, segmental unblinding of CT results during endoscopy, primary three-dimensional interpretation of CT data, double-dose phosphasoda bowel preparation, and tagging of fecal fluid and stool.
2. Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA, et al.: Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003, 125:311-319. This large, prospective, single-institution study demonstrated that in a surveillance population with a low incidence of large polyps, the interpretations of experienced readers at CT colonography are well below those of colonoscopy but are competitive with other screening techniques. This study utilized single-detector CT, 5-mm collimation, and a primary two-dimensional read by radiologists.
3. Cotton PB, Pineau BC, Palesch YY, et al.: Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004, 291:1713-1719. This multicenter trial of CT colonography studied mostly symptomatic populations and demonstrated wide interobserver variability and a poor sensitivity for CT colonography, compared to conventional colonoscopy. Unique aspects of this study are that it utilized a slice thickness of 5.0 mm for some institutions and documented the benefit of the three-dimensional endoluminal images, which increases sensitivity for lesions of 1 cm or more by about 10%, without affecting specificity.
4. Summers RMBI, Petrick N: Virtual colonoscopy [letter]. JAMA 2004, 292:432-433.
5. Ferruci JT, Barrish M, Choi R, et al.: Virtual colonoscopy [letter]. JAMA 2004, 292:431-432. This critique of Cotton's study blames wide slice thickness, unclear quality control, and reader inexperience as the primary reasons for the poor performance of CT colonography.
6. Pickhartdt P: Virtual colonoscopy [letter]. JAMA 2004, 292:431.
7. Halligan STS, Burling D: Virtual colonoscopy [letter]. JAMA 2004, 292:432. The authors criticize Cotton's study for comparing inexperienced radiologists with experienced endoscopists and for failing to provide radiologists with feedback during the course of the study.
8. Cotton P: Virtual colonoscopy [reply], JAMA 2004, 292:433. Cotton points out that several large clinical trials have demonstrated poor sensitivity for CT colonography, with the reasons for poor performance not clearly elucidated.
9. Pedersen BG, Christiansen TEM, Bjerregeard NC, et al.: Colonoscopy and multidetector array computed tomographic colonography: detection rates and feasibility. Endoscopy 2003, 35:736-742.
10. Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ, et al.: Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology 2000, 216:704-711.
11. Pineau BC, Paskett ED, Chen GJ, et al.: Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003, 125:304-310. This prospective study utilizing a diverse mix of patient populations found a high sensitivity and specificity for CT colonography for lesions of 1 cm or more, and that the high negative predictive value may allow CT colonography to be used to reduce the number of screening colonoscopies.
12. Miao YM, Amin Z, Healy J, et al.: A prospective single centre study comparing computed tomography pneumocolon against colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal neoplasms. Gut 2000, 47:832-837.
13. Spinzi G, Belloni G, Martegani A, et al.: Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001, 96:394-400.
14. Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone I, et al.: Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): blinded prospective comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. Endoscopy 2002, 34:441-446.
15. Macari M, Bini EJ, Jacobs SL, et al.: Significance of missed polyps at CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004, 183:127-134. Of polyps 5 mm or less missed at CT colonography, 58% were nonadenomatous. Both of the lesions greater than 1 cm missed at CT colonography, and all three of the lesions greater than 1 cm missed at optical colonoscopy, were adenomatous.
16. Thomeer M, Carbone I, Bosmans H, et al.: Stool tagging applied in thin-slice multidetector computed tomography colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003, 27:132-139. Prospective study in a surveillance population using oral contrast and 1-mm slice thickness demonstrating that sensitivity of two radiologists for polyps 10 to 25 mm was 54 to 58 % in the first 75 patients (by two readers) and 80% in the next 75 patients.
17. Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J, et al.: Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology 2002, 224:393-403.
18. Yee J, Akerkar G, Hung R, et al.: Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 2001, 219:685-692.
19. MacCarty RL, Johnson CD, Retcher JG, Wilson LA: Occult Colorectal Polyps at CT Colonography. Abdominal Radiology Course 2004 presented by the Society of Gastrointestinal Radiologists and the Society of Uroradiology. March 7-12, 2004; Scottsdale, AZ. Polyps occult at CT colonography are usually hyperplastic and more frequently occur in surveillance patients.
20. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Schindler WR: Nonadenomatous polyps at CT colonography: prevalence, size distribution, and detection rates. Radiology 2004, 232:784-790. Eighty percent of nonadenomatous polyps are diminutive, and nonadenomatous polyps accounted for 65% of lesions less than 5 mm in size.
21. Fenlon H, Nunes D, Schroy PI, et al.: A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 1999, 341:1496-1503.
22. Winawer S, Stewart E, Zauber A, et al.: A comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomy. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:1766-1772.
23. Gluecker TM, Fletcher JG, Welch TJ, et al.: Characterization of lesions missed on interpretation of CT colonography using a 2D search method. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004, 182:881-889. Large retrospective study analyzing false-negative CT colonography examinations found that missed polyps tended to be located in poorly prepared bowel segments, lie adjacent to a thickened colonic wall, have flat morphology or an irregular surface contour, and be seen in only one position (supine or prone).
24. Fidler J, Christensen JA, Summers RM, et al.: Comparison of two automated mechanical carbon dioxide insufflation devices for colonic distention at CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004, 182(4 suppl):76. Colonic inflation with newly designed automatic insufflators results in fewer collapsed colonic segments than manual technique or older insufflators.
25. Fletcher J, Johnson CD, Welch T, et al.: Optimization of CT colonography technique: a prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology 2000, 216:704-711.
26. Ransohoff D: Virtual colonoscopy: what it can do vs what it will do [editorial]. JAMA 2004, 291:1772-1774. Provocative editorial in JAMA, outlining practice issues related to CT colonography and its potential acceptance in medical practice, once technical issues can adequately address the interobserver variability.
27. Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, et al.: CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology 2001, 219:693-698.
28. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Bartram CI, et al.: Multi-detector row CT colonography. effect of collimation, pitch, and orientation on polyp detection in a human colectomy specimen. Radiology 2003, 229:109-118. Phantom study in an explanted colon specimen with 117 polyps investigated the effect of multiple CT parameters on polyp conspicuity and found that for detecting polyps 5 mm or greater in size, reducing slice thickness from 2.5 to 1.25 mm was the only significant factor.
29. Lui YW, Macari M, Israel G, et al.: CT colonography data interpretation: effect of different section thicknesses-preliminary observations. Radiology 2003, 229:791-797. Narrow slice thickness appears to improve specificity of CT colonography by resulting in less volume averaging and better displaying the internal attenuation characteristics of lesions.
30. Hara A, Johnson C, MacCarty R, et al.: CT colonography: single- versus multidetector row imaging. Radiology 2001, 219:461-465.
31. Macari M, Milano A, Lavelle M, et al.: Comparison of time-efficient CT colonography with two- and three-dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000, 174:1543-1549.
32. Dachman A, Kuniyoshi J, Boyle C, et al.: CT colonography with three-dimensional problem solving for detection of colonic polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998, 171:989-995.
33. Fidler JL, Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, et al.: Detection of flat lesions in the colon with CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 2002, 27:292-300.
34. Johnson CD, Toledano AY, Herman BA, et al.: Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting. Gastroenterology 2003, 125:688-695. This retrospective trial comparing radiologists with different experience on three computer workstations demonstrated wide interobserver variability for the detection of colorectal lesions but also demonstrated that CT colonography compares favorably to the performance of FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema.
35. Gluecker T, Meuwly JY, Pescatore P, et al.: Effect of investigator experience in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2002, 12:1405-1409.
36. Bodily KD, Fletcher JG, Christensen JA, et al.: Non-radiologists as second readers for CT colonography examinations. Abdominal Radiology Course 2004 presented by the Society of Gastrointestinal Radiologists and the Society of Uroradiology. March 7-12, 2004; Scottsdale, AZ. Nonradiologists can be taught to interpret CT colonography datasets, such that their performance overlaps that of radiologists. Experience beyond 50 cases is required for optimal learning for nonradiologists.
37. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, et al.: CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol 2004, 14:1025-1033. Competence at CT colonography cannot be ensured, even after training of 50 cases is completed, and experienced radiologists may not improve their performance after training.
38. Summers RM, Johnson CD, Pusanik LM, et al.: Automated polyp detection at CT colonography: feasibility assessment in a human population. Radiology 2001, 219:51-59.
39. Yoshida HMY, MacEneaney P, Rubin DT, Dachman AH: Computerized delection of colonic polyps at CT colonography on the basis of volumetric features: pilot study. Radiology 2002, 222:327-336. This was the first study of computer-aided detection to demonstrate a low false-positive rate per patient, with an acceptable sensitivity; however, datasets were chosen only if they contained polyps detectable to a human observer.
40. Mani A, Napel S, Paik DS, et al.: Computed tomography colonography: feasibility of computer-aided detection in a "first reader" paradigm. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004, 2004:318-326. In this pilot study, radiologists using computer-aided lesion detection demonstrated that a first read with computer assistance performed similarly to a manual read; however, radiologists had to evaluate 30 detections per colon.
41. Culpan DG, Mitchell AJ, Hughes SH, et al.: Double contrast barium enema sensitivity: a comparison of studies by radiographers and radiologists. Clin Radiol 2002, 57:604-607.
42. Chapman A: Double-contrast barium enema examination as performed by radiographers. Abdom Imaging 1998, 23:289-291.
43. Rex DKCC, Lemmel GT, Rahmani EY, et al.: Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterol 1997, 112:24-28.
44. Nunsko G, Mansmann U, Partzsch U, et al.: Invasive carcinoma in colorectal adenomas: multivariate analysis of patient and adenoma characteristics. Endoscopy 1997, 29:626-631.
45. Matek WG-HI, Demling L: Follow-up of patients with colorectal adenomas. Endoscopy 1985, 17:175-181.
46. Morson B: President's address: the polyp-cancer sequence in the large bowel. Proc R Soc Med 1974, 67:451-457.
47. Shinya H, Wolff WI: Morphology, anatomic distribution and cancer potential of colonic polyps. Ann Surg 1979, 190:679-683.
48. O'Brien MJ, Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, et al.: The National Polyp Study: patient and polyp characteristics associated with high-grade dysplasia in colorectal adenomas. Gastroenterology 1990, 98:371-379.
49. Hofstad B, Vatn MH, Andersen S, et al.: Growth of colorectal polyps: redistection and evaluation of unresected polyps for a period of three years. Gut 1996, 29:449-456.
50. Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Bauerfeind P: Is virtual colonoscopy a cost-effective option to screen for colorectal cancer? Am J Gastroenterol 1999, 94:2268-2274.
51. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, et al.: Colorectal cancer screenirg with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 2003, 227:378-384. This study on patient acceptance with full structural screening techniques found barium enema to be the most onerous screening tool, and that patients preferred CT colonography to colonoscopy or double-contrast barium enema.
52. Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D, et al.: Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol 2002, 12:1410-1415. The majority of patients preferred CT colonography to colonoscopy, but nearly all patients felt the most uncomfortable part of both procedures was the bowel preparation.
53. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Saunders BP, et al.: Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 181:913-921. While CT caused less discomfort than colonoscopy, was better tolerated, and was the preferred method of follow-up, the overall satisfaction was rated higher for colonoscopy. Again, barium enema examinations were the most uncomfortable of the screening methods.
54. Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP: Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 2003, 98:578-585. Both CT colonography and colonoscopy were rated favorably by patients, who viewed the bowel preparation as onerous.
55. Hara A, Johnson C, MacCarty R, Welch T: Incidental extracolonic findings at CT colonography. Radiology 2000, 215:353-357.
56. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Wilson LA, et al.: Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population. Gastroenterology 2003, 124:911-916. Only moderate incremental costs are incurred in the screening population, when following up clinically important extracolonic findings, estimated as about 10% of individuals.
57. Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C, et al.: A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 2004, 53:277-283. A regional survey in the United Kingdom demonstrated that many more colonoscopies than anticipated may be incomplete, particularly in community practice and nonstudy settings, potentially increasing the role for virtual colonoscopy.
58. Morrin M, Kruskal J, Farrell R, et al.: Endoluminal CT colonography after an incomplete endoscopic colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999, 172:913-918.
59. Fenlon H, McAneny D, Nunes D, et al.: Occlusive colon carcinoma: virtual colonoscopy in the preoperative evaluation of the proximal colon. Radiology 1999, 210:423-428.
60. Macari M, Berman P, Dicker M, et al.: Usefulness of CT colonography in patients with incomplete colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999, 173:561-564.
61. Hara AK, Lighton JA: CT colonography with IV contrast: improved evaluation of intra and extracolonic findings. Radiology 2002, 235(P):223. Colorectal polyps and cancers enhance significantly with IV contrast, and this san be a method applied to distinguish true colonic lesions from stool.
62. Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, Welch TJ, et al.: Comparison of the relative sensitivity of CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004, 2:314-321. A head-to-head comparison of CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema in more than 800 asymptomatic persons demonstrated that CT colonography displays more polyps than double-contrast barium enema, particularly when CT colonography examinations are double-read.