The feasibility of colorectal cancer detection using dual-energy computed tomography with iodine mapping

Clinical Radiology

Volumn 68, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 799-806

  Boellaard, T N ^a   Henneman, O D F ^b   Streekstra, G J ^a   Venema, H W ^a   Nio, C Y ^a   Van Dorth Rombouts, M C ^b   Stoker, J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b MEDICAL CENTER HAAGLANDEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IODINE; IODIXANOL;

ADULT; AERATION; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SIZE; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COLON INJURY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DUAL ENERGY COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INTESTINE PREPARATION; MALE; PNEUMATOSIS INTESTINALIS; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY;

EID: 84882455309     PISSN: 00099260     EISSN: 1365229X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2013.03.005     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:69-90.
2. de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM, et al. Burden of colonoscopy compared to non-cathartic CT-colonography in a colorectal cancer screening programme: randomised controlled trial. Gut 2011;61: 1552-9.
3. Jung HS, Park DK, Kim MJ, et al. A comparison of patient acceptance and preferences between CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Korean J Intern Med 2009;24:43-7.
4. Neri E, Halligan S, Hellstrom M, et al. The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2013;23:720-9.
5. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:873-85.
6. Burling D, Halligan S, Slater A, et al. Potentially serious adverse events at CT colonography in symptomatic patients: national survey of the United Kingdom. Radiology 2006;239:464-71.
7. Anderson ML, Pasha TM, Leighton JA. Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95: 3418-22.
8. Day JJ, Freeman AH, Coni NK, et al. Barium enema or computed tomography for the frail elderly patient? Clin Radiol 1993;48:48-51.
9. Domjan J, Blaquiere R, Odurny A. Is minimal preparation computed tomography comparable with barium enema in elderly patients with colonic symptoms? Clin Radiol 1998;53:894-8.
10. Lipscomb G, Loughrey G, Thakker M, et al. A prospective study of abdominal computerized tomography and colonoscopy in the diagnosis of colonic disease in an elderly population. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1996;8:887-91.
11. Robinson P, Burnett H, Nicholson DA. The use of minimal preparation computed tomography for the primary investigation of colon cancer in frail or elderly patients. Clin Radiol 2002;57:389-92.
12. Kealey SM, Dodd JD, MacEneaney PM, et al. Minimal preparation computed tomography instead of barium enema/colonoscopy for suspected colon cancer in frail elderly patients: an outcome analysis study. Clin Radiol 2004;59:44-52.
13. Ozel B, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, et al. Accuracy of routine nontargeted CT without colonography technique for the detection of large colorectal polyps and cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53:911-8.
14. Thomson A, Naidoo P, Crotty B. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomized prospective trail comparing sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol in a predominantly elderly population. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1996;11:103-7.
15. Beloosesky Y, Grinblat J, Weiss A, et al. Electrolyte disorders following oral sodium phosphate administration for bowel cleansing in elderly patients. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:803-8.
16. Chung YW, Han DS, Park KH, et al. Patient factors predictive of inadequate bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol: a prospective study in Korea. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009;43:448-52.
17. Johnson TR, Krauss B, Sedlmair M, et al. Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2007;17:1510-7.
18. Petersilka M, Bruder H, Krauss B, et al. Technical principles of dual source CT. Eur J Radiol 2008;68:362-8.
19. Karcaaltincaba M, Karaosmanoglu D, Akata D, et al. Dual energy virtual CT colonoscopy with dual source computed tomography: initial experience. Rofo 2009;181:859-62.
20. Neri E, Vagli P, Picchietti S, et al. CT colonography: contrast enhancement of benign and malignant colorectal lesions versus fecal residuals. Abdom Imaging 2005;30:694-7.
21. Oto A, Gelebek V, Oguz BS, et al. CT attenuation of colorectal polypoid lesions: evaluation of contrast enhancement in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2003;13:1657-63.
22. Graser A, Johnson TR, Chandarana H, et al. Dual energy CT: preliminary observations and potential clinical applications in the abdomen. Eur Radiol 2009;19:13-23.
23. de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM, et al. Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol 2010;10:47.
24. Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, Halligan S, et al. CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers. Eur Radiol 2009; 19:1723-30.
25. Graser A, Becker CR, Staehler M, et al. Single-phase dual-energy CT allows for characterization of renal masses as benign or malignant. Invest Radiol 2010;45:399-405.
26. Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J, et al. CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol 2010;20:146-56.
27. van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J, et al. CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 2004;233:328-37.
28. Ng CS, Doyle TC, Pinto EM, et al. Evaluation of CT in identifying colorectal carcinoma in the frail and disabled patient. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2988-97.