Current techniques in the performance, interpretation, and reporting of CT colonography

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 169-192

  Poullos, Peter D ^a   Beaulieu, Christopher F ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer screening; Colorectal carcinoma; Colorectal polyp; CT colonography; Stool tagging; Virtual colonoscopy

Indexed keywords

BARIUM; BISACODYL; DIATRIZOATE; DISODIUM HYDROGEN PHOSPHATE; GLUCAGON; IODINATED CONTRAST MEDIUM; IOHEXOL; IOPROMIDE; LAXATIVE; LOSO PREP; MACROGOL; MAGNESIUM CITRATE; MEGLUMINE DIATRIZOATE; NEUTRA PREP; OSMOPREP; PLACEBO; SCOPOLAMINE BUTYL BROMIDE; SODIUM DIHYDROGEN PHOSPHATE; SPASMOLYTIC AGENT; TAGITOL; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VISICOL;

AERATION; ALLERGIC REACTION; ANAPHYLAXIS; ASPIRATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLON POLYP; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CARCINOMA; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONSTIPATION; DEHYDRATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIET RESTRICTION; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM INJURY; DRUG DOSE COMPARISON; DRUG MECHANISM; ELECTROLYTE DISTURBANCE; EVENING DOSAGE; FECES IMPACTION; GASTROINTESTINAL SYMPTOM; HUMAN; HYPERNATREMIA; HYPERPHOSPHATEMIA; HYPOCALCEMIA; HYPOKALEMIA; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTESTINE PREPARATION; KIDNEY DISEASE; METABOLIC ACIDOSIS; MORNING DOSAGE; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; RADIATION DOSE; REPEATED DRUG DOSE; REVIEW; RISK REDUCTION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIDE EFFECT; SINGLE DRUG DOSE; TETANY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT; VOMITING; COLORECTAL TUMOR; DEVICES; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS;

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 77952566237     PISSN: 10525157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giec.2010.02.007     Document Type: Review

References (111)

1. Coin C.G., Wollett F.C., Coin J.T., et al. Computerized radiology of the colon: a potential screening technique. Comput Radiol 1983, 7:215.
2. Vining D.J., Shifrin R.Y., Grishaw E.K., et al. Virtual colonoscopy. Radiology 1994, 193(P):446.
3. Hara A.K., Johnson C.D., Reed J.E., et al. Detection of colorectal polyps by computed tomographic colography: feasibility of a novel technique. Gastroenterology 1996, 110:284.
4. Dachman A.H., Lieberman J., Osnis R.B., et al. Small simulated polyps in pig colon: sensitivity of CT virtual colography. Radiology 1997, 203:427.
5. Kim D.H., Pickhardt P.J., Taylor A.J., et al. CT Colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2007, 357:1403.
6. Pickhardt P.J., Choi J.R., Hwang I., et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:2191.
7. Johnson C.D., Chen M.-H., Toledano A.Y., et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:1207.
8. Fletcher J.G., Booya F., Johnson C.D., et al. CT colonography: unraveling the twists and turns. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2005, 21:90.
9. Yee J., Kumar N.N., Hung R.K., et al. Comparison of supine and prone scanning separately and in combination at CT colonography. Radiology 2003, 226:653.
10. Fletcher J.G., Johnson C.D., Welch T.J., et al. Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology 2000, 216:704.
11. Yee J. Virtual colonoscopy workshop lecture. In: San Francisco (CA); 2009.
12. Delegge M., Kaplan R. Efficacy of bowel preparation with the use of a prepackaged, low fibre diet with a low sodium, magnesium citrate cathartic vs. a clear liquid diet with a standard sodium phosphate cathartic. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005, 21:1491.
13. Nelson D.B., Barkun A.N., Block K.P., et al. Technology status evaluation report. Colonoscopy preparations. May 2001. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 54:829.
14. Macari M., Lavelle M., Pedrosa I., et al. Effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid at CT colonography. Radiology 2001, 218:274.
15. FDA. Oral sodium phosphate (OSP) products for bowel cleansing (marketed as Visicol and OsmoPrep, and oral sodium phosphate products available without a prescription); 2008. Available at: Accessed February 11, 2010. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm094900.htm.
16. Yee J. CT colonography: techniques and applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2009, 47:133.
17. Kim D.H., Pickhardt P.J., Hinshaw J.L., et al. Prospective blinded trial comparing 45-mL and 90-mL doses of oral sodium phosphate for bowel preparation before computed tomographic colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007, 31:53.
18. Belsey J., Epstein O., Heresbach D. Systematic review: adverse event reports for oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008, [Epub ahead of print].
19. Ehrenpreis E.D., Nogueras J.J., Botoman V.A., et al. Serum electrolyte abnormalities secondary to Fleet's Phospho-Soda colonoscopy prep. A review of three cases. Surg Endosc 1996, 10:1022.
20. Vukasin P., Weston L.A., Beart R.W. Oral Fleet Phospho-Soda laxative-induced hyperphosphatemia and hypocalcemic tetany in an adult: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 1997, 40:497.
21. Markowitz G.S., Stokes M.B., Radhakrishnan J., et al. Acute phosphate nephropathy following oral sodium phosphate bowel purgative: an underrecognized cause of chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005, 16:3389.
22. Khurana A., McLean L., Atkinson S., et al. The effect of oral sodium phosphate drug products on renal function in adults undergoing bowel endoscopy. Arch Intern Med 2008, 168:593.
23. Hsu C.-W., Imperiale T.F. Meta-analysis and cost comparison of polyethylene glycol lavage versus sodium phosphate for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 1998, 48:276.
24. Tan J.J., Tjandra J.J. Which is the optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy-a meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 2006, 8:247.
25. Belsey J., Epstein O., Heresbach D. Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007, 25:373.
26. Mathus-Vliegen E.M., Kemble U.M. A prospective randomized blinded comparison of sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution for safe bowel cleansing. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006, 23:543.
27. Pickhardt P.J. Screening CT colonography: how I do it. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 189:290.
28. Ell C., Fischbach W., Keller R., et al. A randomized, blinded, prospective trial to compare the safety and efficacy of three bowel-cleansing solutions for colonoscopy (HSG-01*). Endoscopy 2003, 35:300.
29. Aihara H., Saito S., Arakawa H., et al. Comparison of two sodium phosphate tablet-based regimens and a polyethylene glycol regimen for colon cleansing prior to colonoscopy: a randomized prospective pilot study. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009, 24:1023-1030.
30. Kim S.H., Choi B.I., Han J.K., et al. CT colonography in a Korean population with a high residue diet: comparison between wet and dry preparations. Clin Radiol 2006, 61:483.
31. Gluecker T.M., Johnson C.D., Harmsen W.S., et al. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 2003, 227:378.
32. Nagata K., Okawa T., Honma A., et al. Full-laxative versus minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CT colonography using 64-detector row CT: prospective blinded comparison of diagnostic performance, tagging quality, and patient acceptance. Acad Radiol 2009, 16:780.
33. Taylor S., Laghi A., Lefere P., et al. European society of gastrointestinal and abdominal radiology (ESGAR): Consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2007, 17:575.
34. Nagata K., Singh A.K., Sangwaiya M.J., et al. Comparative evaluation of the fecal-tagging quality in CT colonography: barium vs. iodinated oral contrast agent. Acad Radiol 2009, 16:1393-1399.
35. Bielen D., Thomeer M., Vanbeckevoort D., et al. Dry preparation for virtual CT colonography with fecal tagging using water-soluble contrast medium: initial results. Eur Radiol 2003, 13:453.
36. Lefere P., Gryspeerdt S., Baekelandt M., et al. Laxative-free CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004, 183:945.
37. Iannaccone R., Laghi A., Catalano C., et al. Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2004, 127:1300.
38. Nagata K., Endo S., Ichikawa T., et al. Polyethylene glycol solution (PEG) plus contrast medium vs PEG alone preparation for CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in preoperative colorectal cancer staging. Int J Colorectal Dis 2007, 22:69-76.
39. Jensch S., de Vries A.H., Peringa J., et al. CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population. Radiology 2008, 247:122.
40. Taylor S.A., Slater A., Burling D.N., et al. CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol 2008, 18:32.
41. Lefere P.A., Gryspeerdt S.S., 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.
42. Gryspeerdt S., Lefere P., Herman M., et al. CT colonography with fecal tagging after incomplete colonoscopy. Eur Radiol 2005, 15:1192.
43. O'Connor S.D., Summers R.M. Revisiting oral barium sulfate contrast agents. Acad Radiol 2007, 14:72.
44. Zalis M.E., Hahn P.F. Digital subtraction bowel cleansing in CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001, 176:646.
45. Horton K.M., Fishman E.K., Gayler B. The use of iohexol as oral contrast for computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008, 32:207.
46. Zalis M.E., Perumpillichira J.J., Magee C., et al. Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 2006, 239:149.
47. Davis G.R., Santa Ana C.A., Morawski S.G., et al. Inhibition of water and electrolyte absorption by polyethylene glycol (PEG). Gastroenterology 1980, 79:35.
48. Seymour C.W., Pryor J.P., Gupta R., et al. Anaphylactoid reaction to oral contrast for computed tomography. J Trauma 2004, 57:1105.
49. Stordahl A., Laerum F., Gjølberg T., et al. Water-soluble contrast media in radiography of small bowel obstruction-comparison of ionic and non-ionic contrast media. Acta Radiol 1988, 29:53.
50. Ristvedt S.L., McFarland E.G., Weinstock L.B., et al. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 2003, 98:578.
51. Johnson C.D., Manduca A., Fletcher J.G., et al. Noncathartic CT colonography with stool tagging: performance with and without electronic stool subtraction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 190:361.
52. Beebe T.J., Johnson C.D., Stoner S.M., et al. Assessing attitudes toward laxative preparation in colorectal cancer screening and effects on future testing: potential receptivity to computed tomographic colonography. Mayo Clin Proc 2007, 82:666.
53. Callstrom M.R., Johnson C.D., Fletcher J.G., et al. CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology 2001, 219:693.
54. Lefere P., Gryspeerdt S., Marrannes J., et al. CT colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005, 184:1836.
55. Jensch S., de Vries A.H., Pot D., et al. Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography. Am J Roentgenol 2008, 191:158.
56. Pochaczevsky R. Digital subtraction bowel cleansing in CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002, 178:241.
57. Serlie I.W., de Vries A.H., van Vliet L.J., et al. Lesion conspicuity and efficiency of CT colonography with electronic cleansing based on a three-material transition model. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 191:1493.
58. Pickhardt P.J., Choi J.R., Nugent P.A., et al. The effect of diagnostic confidence on the probability of optical colonoscopic confirmation of potential polyps detected on CT colonography: prospective assessment in 1,339 asymptomatic adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004, 183:1661.
59. Burling D., Taylor S.A., Halligan S., et al. Automated insufflation of carbon dioxide for MDCT colonography: distension and patient experience compared with manual insufflation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186:96.
60. Vining D.J. Virtual colonoscopy. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1999, 20:56.
61. Shinners T.J., Pickhardt P.J., Taylor A.J., et al. Patient-controlled room air insufflation versus automated carbon dioxide delivery for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186:1491.
62. Pickhardt P.J. Incidence of colonic perforation at CT colonography: review of existing data and implications for screening of asymptomatic adults. Radiology 2006, 239:313.
63. Chen S.C., Lu D.S., Hecht J.R., et al. CT colonography: value of scanning in both the supine and prone positions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999, 172:595.
64. Skucas J. The use of antispasmodic drugs during barium enemas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994, 162:1323.
65. Lappas J.C., Maglinte D.D., Chernish S.M., et al. Discomfort during double-contrast barium enema examination: a placebo-controlled double-blind evaluation of the effect of glucagon and diazepam. Radiology 1995, 197:95.
66. Morrin M.M., Farrell R.J., Keogan M.T., et al. CT colonography: colonic distention improved by dual positioning but not intravenous glucagon. Eur Radiol 2002, 12:525.
67. Yee J., Hung R.K., Akerkar G.A., et al. The usefulness of glucagon hydrochloride for colonic distention in CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999, 173:169. [comments].
68. Chernish S.M., Maglinte D.D. Glucagon: common untoward reactions-review and recommendations. Radiology 1990, 177:145.
69. Bruzzi J.F., Moss A.C., Brennan D.D., et al. Efficacy of IV Buscopan as a muscle relaxant in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2003, 13(10):2264-2270.
70. Hara A.K., Johnson C.D., Reed J.E. CT colography (CTC) for clinical use: a new method to reduce evaluation time. Radiology 1997, 205(P):718.
71. Fenlon H.M., Nunes D.P., Schroy P.C., et al. A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 1999, 341:1496. [comments].
72. Lui Y.W., Macari M., Israel G., et al. CT colonography data interpretation: effect of different section thicknesses-preliminary observations. Radiology 2003, 229:791.
73. Macari M., Bini E.J., Xue X., et al. Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology 2002, 224:383.
74. Hara A.K., Johnson C.D., MacCarty R.L., et al. CT colonography: single- versus multi-detector row imaging. Radiology 2001, 219:461.
75. Johnson C.D., Fletcher J.G., MacCarty R.L., et al. Effect of slice thickness and primary 2D versus 3D virtual dissection on colorectal lesion detection at CT colonography in 452 asymptomatic adults. Am J Roentgenol 2007, 189:672.
76. Graser A., Wintersperger B.J., Suess C., et al. Dose reduction and image quality in MDCT colonography using tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 187:695.
77. McCollough C.H. Optimization of multidetector array CT acquisition parameters for CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 2002, 27:253.
78. van Gelder R.E., Venema H.W., Florie J., et al. CT colonography: feasibility of substantial dose reduction-comparison of medium to very low doses in identical patients. Radiology 2004, 232:611.
79. Hall E.J., Brenner D.J. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 2008, 81:362.
80. van Gelder R.E., Venema H.W., Serlie I.W., et al. CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction. Radiology 2002, 224:25.
81. Luz O., Buchgeister M., Klabunde M., et al. Evaluation of dose exposure in 64-slice CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2007, 17:2616.
82. Hara A.K., Johnson C.D., Reed J.E., et al. Reducing data size and radiation dose for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997, 168:1181.
83. Brenner D.J., Georgsson M.A. Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern?. Gastroenterology 2005, 129:328.
84. Liedenbaum M.H., Venema H.W., Stoker J. Radiation dose in CT colonography-trends in time and differences between daily practice and screening protocols. Eur Radiol 2008, 18:2222.
85. Iannaccone R., Laghi A., Catalano C., et al. Feasibility of ultra-low-dose multislice CT colonography for the detection of colorectal lesions: preliminary experience. Eur Radiol 2003, 13:1297.
86. Beaulieu C.F., Jeffrey R.B., Karadi C., et al. Display modes for CT colonography. Part II. Blinded comparison of axial CT and virtual endoscopic and panoramic endoscopic volume-rendered studies. Radiology 1999, 212:203.
87. Cotton P.B., Durkalski V.L., Pineau B.C., et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004, 291:1713.
88. Burling D., Halligan S., Altman D.G., et al. CT colonography interpretation times: effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings in a multi-centre setting. Eur Radiol 2006, 16(8):1745-1749.
89. 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.
90. Royster A.P., Fenlon H.M., Clarke P.D., et al. CT colonoscopy of colorectal neoplasms: two-dimensional and three-dimensional virtual-reality techniques with colonoscopic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997, 169:1237.
91. Dachman A.H., Kuniyoshi J.K., Boyle C.M., et al. CT colonography with three-dimensional problem solving for detection of colonic polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998, 171:989.
92. Paik D.S., Beaulieu C.F., Jeffrey R.B., et al. Visualization modes for CT colonography using cylindrical and planar map projections. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000, 24:179.
93. Johnson K.T., Johnson C.D., Fletcher J.G., et al. CT colonography using 360-degree virtual dissection: a feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186:90.
94. Rottgen R., Fischbach F., Plotkin M., et al. CT colonography using different reconstruction modi. Clin Imaging 2005, 29:195.
95. Kim S.H., Lee J.M., Eun H.W., et al. Two- versus three-dimensional colon evaluation with recently developed virtual dissection software for CT colonography. Radiology 2007, 244:852.
96. Hoppe H., Quattropani C., Spreng A., et al. Virtual colon dissection with CT colonography compared with axial interpretation and conventional colonoscopy: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004, 182:1151.
97. Fisichella V.A., Jaderling F., Horvath S., et al. Primary three-dimensional analysis with perspective-filet view versus primary two-dimensional analysis: evaluation of lesion detection by inexperienced readers at computed tomographic colonography in symptomatic patients. Acta Radiol 2009, 50:244.
98. Pickhardt P.J. Translucency rendering in 3D endoluminal CT colonography: a useful tool for increasing polyp specificity and decreasing interpretation time. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004, 183:429.
99. Ferrucci J.T. Colon cancer screening with virtual colonoscopy: promise, polyps, politics. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001, 177:975.
100. Dachman A.H., Zalis M.E. Quality and consistency in CT colonography and research reporting. Radiology 2004, 230:319.
101. Burling D., Halligan S., Taylor S., et al. Polyp measurement using CT colonography: agreement with colonoscopy and effect of viewing conditions on interobserver and intraobserver agreement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186:1597.
102. Halligan S., Altman D.G., Taylor S.A., et al. CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology 2005, 237:893.
103. Park S.H., Choi E.K., Lee S.S., et al. Polyp measurement reliability, accuracy, and discrepancy: optical colonoscopy versus CT colonography with pig colonic specimens. Radiology 2007, 244:157.
104. Halligan S., Park S.H., Ha H.K. Causes of false-negative findings at CT colonography. Radiology 2006, 238:1075.
105. Morales T.G., Sampliner R.E., Garewal H.S., et al. The difference in colon polyp size before and after removal. Gastrointest Endosc 1996, 43:25.
106. Debatin J.F., Schoenenberger A.W., Luboldt W., et al. In vivo exoscopic and endoscopic MR imaging of the colon. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997, 169:1085.
107. Fennerty M.B., Davidson J., Emerson S.S., et al. Are endoscopic measurements of colonic polyps reliable?. Am J Gastroenterol 1993, 88:496.
108. Pickhardt P.J., Lee A.D., McFarland E.G., et al. Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays. Radiology 2005, 236:872.
109. Yeshwant S.C., Summers R.M., Yao J., et al. Polyps: linear and volumetric measurement at CT colonography. Radiology 2006, 241:802.
110. Pickhardt P.J., Lehman V.T., Winter T.C., et al. Polyp volume versus linear size measurements at CT colonography: implications for noninvasive surveillance of unresected colorectal lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186:1605.
111. Zalis M.E., Barish M.A., Choi J.R., et al. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 2005, 236:3.