Significance of missed polyps at CT colonography

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine the clinical significance of polyps missed on CT colonography using histologic analysis and the natural history of colorectal polyps and to propose guidelines for follow-up colon surveillance based on CT colonographic findings. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. One hundred eighty-six men (age range, 40-87 years; mean, 62.3 years) underwent CT colonography immediately before conventional colonoscopy. All polyps detected on CT colonography were measured and imaged, and their segmental location was documented. All polyps detected on colonoscopy were measured, photographed, biopsied, and histologically analyzed. Results of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy were compared with the final pathology reports. Conventional colonoscopy was used as the gold standard unless CT colonography showed a lesion measuring 10 mm or more that was not detected on conventional colonoscopy and had characteristics of a polyp. In these cases, follow-up conventional colonoscopy was offered. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one polyps were detected on conventional colonoscopy. CT colonography prospectively detected 53 polyps. Histologic analysis of the polyps not detected on CT colonography showed that of those 5 mm or smaller, 58.1% were not adenomas, and of those measuring 6-9 mm, 42.8% were not adenomas. Both missed polyps at CT colonography of 10 mm or more were adenomas. Of the 22 polyps measuring 10 mm or more, three were not detected on conventional colonoscopy. Of these three, CT colonography showed a lesion having characteristics of a polyp, follow-up endoscopy confirmed the presence of the lesion, and histologic analysis showed a villous adenoma, a tubulovillous adenoma, and a tubular adenoma. CONCLUSION: If CT colonography shows no abnormality, follow-up screening in 5 years is recommended. If CT colonography detects a lesion smaller than 5 mm, follow-up imaging in 3-5 years is recommended. If CT colonography detects a lesion measuring 6 mm or more, endoscopy and polypectomy should be offered unless contraindicated.     

Colorectal polyps: detection with low-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography versus two sequential colonoscopies

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of low-radiation-dose computed tomographic (CT) colonography for detection of colorectal polyps by using two sequential colonoscopies, with the second colonoscopy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was local ethics committee approved, and all patients gave written informed consent. Colonographic images were acquired by using a low-dose multi-detector row CT protocol (effective milliampere-second setting, 10 mAs). Three observers interpreted the CT colonographic data separately and independently by using a two-dimensional technique. Initial conventional colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist unaware of the CT colonographic findings. Second colonoscopy performed within 2 weeks by a colonoscopist aware of both the CT colonographic and the initial colonoscopic findings served as the reference standard. The sensitivities of CT colonography and initial colonoscopy were calculated on a per-polyp and a per-patient basis. Specificities and positive and negative predictive values also were calculated on a per-patient basis. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients underwent CT colonography and initial conventional colonoscopy on the same day. Per-polyp sensitivities were 62% and 83% for CT colonography and initial colonoscopy, respectively. Sensitivities for detection of polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger were 86% and 84% for CT colonography and initial colonoscopy, respectively. Initial colonoscopy failed to depict 16 polyps, six of which were correctly detected with CT colonography. For identification of patients with polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger, CT colonography and initial colonoscopy, respectively, had sensitivities of 84% and 90%, specificities of 82% and 100%, positive predictive values of 70% and 100%, and negative predictive values of 91% and 95%. CONCLUSION: Low-dose CT colonography compares favorably with colonoscopy for detection of colorectal polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger, with markedly decreased performance for detection of polyps 5 mm in diameter or smaller.     

Feasibility of ultra-low-dose multislice CT colonography for the detection of colorectal lesions: preliminary experience

Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of ultra-low-dose scanning for multislice CT colonography in the detection of colorectal lesions. Twenty-seven patients (14 men, 13 women) with clinical indication for conventional colonoscopy were recruited. Multislice spiral CT (Somatom Plus 4 Volume Zoom, Siemens, Germany) examinations were performed after standard oral colonoscopic preparation and colonic distension with room air. Images were acquired using 2.5-mm collimation, 3.0-mm slice thickness, standard reconstruction kernel, 140 kVp, and 10 mAs. Supine and prone acquisitions were obtained in all patients. Images were analyzed on a workstation by two gastrointestinal radiologists. Conventional colonoscopy was performed on the same day in all patients and represented the standard of reference. Total radiation exposure was also calculated. All colorectal cancers were correctly identified at CT colonography (9 of 9, sensitivity 100%). The CT colonography also detected 10 of 12 polyps (overall sensitivity 83.3%). Based on polyp diameter, the sensitivity for the detection of polyps 10 mm or larger was 100% (3 of 3); between 6 and 9 mm, 100% (3 of 3); and 5 mm or smaller, 66.6% (4 of 6). Total radiation exposure for prone and supine acquisitions combined was 1.7 mSv (for men) and 2.3 mSv (for women). Although preliminary, our experience suggests that ultra-low-dose scanning for multislice CT colonography is feasible. This technique provides a sensitivity comparable to that of previous experiences with CT colonography but with a 40–70% reduction of the radiation dose delivered to patients. Electronic Publication     

Comparison of time-efficient CT colonography with two- and three-dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps

OBJECTIVE: We compared the findings of time-efficient CT colonography with complete two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in detecting colorectal polyps. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients undergoing colonoscopy screening were examined with CT colonography before endoscopy. Data were examined following one of two methods. In method 1, axial 2D data sets were examined in a cine mode. If findings were suggestive of abnormality, focal areas were examined with 3D CT colonography. In method 2, data sets were examined exactly as in method 1, and subsequent to that review, data sets were examined with simultaneous 3D "fly-through" CT colonography (surface-rendered images) and multiplanar reformatted images. The time required to examine CT colonography using each technique was recorded and abnormal findings were documented. Results of methods 1 and 2 were compared with findings on colonoscopy. RESULTS: Colonoscopy detected 16 polyps in 13 patients (polyp size, 2-10 mm). Ten polyps measured 5 mm or less, five measured between 6 and 9 mm, and one measured 10 mm or more. Using method 1, two of 10 polyps measuring less than 5 mm, three of five polyps measuring between 6 and 9 mm, and one polyp measuring 10 mm were detected. We noted no false-positive polyps. Average evaluation time was 16 min. With method 2, the same polyps were seen as with method 1. No additional polyps were detected, and the average evaluation time was 40 min. CONCLUSION: Axial 2D CT colonography can be performed quickly and is comparable with complete 2D and 3D CT colonography in detecting colorectal polyps.     

Colorectal polyps and cancers in asymptomatic average-risk patients: evaluation with CT colonography

PURPOSE: To compare thin-section multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) colonography with conventional colonoscopy in the evaluation of colorectal polyps and cancer in asymptomatic average-risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight asymptomatic men (age > 50 years) scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were enrolled in this study. CT colonography was followed by conventional colonoscopy, performed on the same day. Supine and prone CT colonography were performed after colonic insufflation with room air. A gastroenterologist measured all polyps, which were categorized as 1-5, 6-9, or over 10 mm. Biopsy and histologic evaluation were performed of all polyps. CT colonography and colonoscopy results were compared for location, size, and morphology of detected lesions. Point estimates and 95% CIs were provided for specificity and sensitivity of CT by using results at conventional colonoscopy as the reference standard. RESULTS: At colonoscopy, 98 polyps were identified in 39 patients; 21 (21.4%) of 98 were detected at CT colonography. Sensitivity was 11.5% (nine of 78) for polyps 1-5 mm, 52.9% (nine of 17) for polyps 6-9 mm, and 100% (three of three) for polyps over 10 mm. Results at colonoscopy were normal in 29 (42.6%) of 68 patients; at CT colonography, results were correctly identified as normal in 26 of these 29 patients. In one of these patients, a lesion larger than 10 mm was detected at CT colonography. The per-patient specificity of CT was 89.7% (26 of 29; 95% CI: 72.7%, 97.8%). The mean time for CT image interpretation was 9 minutes. CONCLUSION: In patients at average risk for colorectal cancer, CT colonography is a sensitive and specific screening test for detecting polyps 10 mm or larger; the sensitivity for detecting smaller polyps is decreased. Examination findings can be interpreted in a clinically feasible amount of time.     

Contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography in the follow-up of colorectal cancer patients: a feasibility study

The aim of our study was to assess whether contrast-enhanced CT colonography is a feasible alternative to both conventional colonoscopy and liver ultrasonography in the follow-up program of colorectal cancer patients. Thirty-five patients, surgically treated for colorectal cancer, underwent a follow-up program that included physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen serum assay, conventional colonoscopy, liver ultrasonography, and chest X-ray. For these patients, we added a yearly contrast-enhanced CT colonography. All CT examinations were performed with a high-resolution protocol using a multidetector spiral CT scanner (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) prior to and after the administration of 130 ml of i.v. contrast material. Images were directly analyzed on a dedicated workstation by two radiologists to determine colonic evaluation, visualization of colonic anastomosis, presence of polyps, and extra-colonic findings. Colonic evaluation was judged as optimal in 91.7% of all colonic segments. All mechanical surgical anastomoses were visualized with CT colonography. There was no evidence of anastomotic recurrence. Seven polyps were detected in five different patients with CT colonography, with two false-positive and no false-negative examinations. Three liver metastases and two basal pulmonary nodules were also identified. Contrast-enhanced CT colonography is a feasible alternative to both conventional colonoscopy and liver ultrasonography in the follow-up of patients operated on for colorectal cancer. Electronic Publication     

Colonic surveillance by CT colonography using axial images only

Patients at increased risk of colon cancer require strict colon surveillance. Our objective was to establish the efficacy of 2D axial CT colonography as a surveillance test when performed in routine clinical practice. Eighty-two patients at increased risk of colon cancer underwent CT colonography followed by conventional colonoscopy on the same morning. CT colonography studies were performed on a four-ring multidetector CT scanner (100 mAs, 120 kVp, 4×2.5 collimation) and were interpreted by two radiologists using 2D axial images only. Results were correlated with findings at colonoscopy. Note was made of subsequent histology reports from polypectomy specimens. A total of 52 polyps were detected at colonoscopy. Using 2D axial images alone, with no recourse to 2D multiplanar or 3D views, the sensitivity of CT colonography was 100, 33 and 19% for polyps larger than 9, 6–9 and smaller than 6 mm, respectively. Per-patient specificities were 98.8, 96 and 81.5%, respectively. Twenty-nine percent of polyps smaller than 1 cm were adenomatous and there were no histological features of severe dysplasia. CT colonography is a useful colon surveillance tool for patients at increased risk of colon cancer. It has a high specificity for identifying patients who should proceed to colonoscopy and polypectomy, while allowing further colon examination to be deferred in patients with normal studies. Using 2D axial images only, CT colonography can be performed as part of the daily CT workload, with a very low rate of referral for unnecessary colonoscopy.     

Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare thin-section low-dose multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) colonography with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred five patients underwent CT colonography immediately before colonoscopy. Supine and prone CT colonographic acquisitions to image the region during a 30-second breath hold were performed. CT colonographic images were prospectively interpreted for the presence, location, size, and morphologic features of polyps. The time of image interpretation was noted. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CT colonography were calculated, with 95% CIs, by using colonoscopic findings as the reference standard. The weighted CT dose index was calculated on the basis of measurements in a standard body phantom. Effective dose was calculated by using commercially available software. RESULTS: Median CT data interpretation time was 12 minutes. One hundred thirty-two polyps in 59 patients were identified at colonoscopy; no polyps were detected in 46 patients. Sensitivities for detection of polyps smaller than 5 mm, 6-9 mm, and larger than 10 mm in diameter were 12% (11 of 91 polyps), 70% (19 of 27 polyps), and 93% (13 of 14 polyps), respectively. Estimated overall specificity was 97.7% (515 of 527 imaging results). The total weighted CT dose index for combined supine and prone CT colonography was 11.4 mGy. The effective doses for combined CT colonography were 5.0 mSv and 7.8 mSv for men and women, respectively. CONCLUSION: Low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography has excellent sensitivity and specificity for detection of colorectal neoplasms 10 mm and larger.     

Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue?

The aim of this study was to evaluate the discomfort associated with CT colonography compared with colonoscopy and bowel purgation cleansing, and to evaluate patient preference between CT colonography and colonoscopy. In a total of 124 patients, scheduled for multidetector virtual CT colonography and diagnostic colonoscopy, patient acceptance and future preference were assessed during the different steps of the procedure (colon preparation, CT examination, and conventional colonoscopy). Patients who described contradictory findings between the degree of discomfort and their preference regarding follow-up examinations were retrospectively reinterviewed regarding the reason for this discrepancy. Colonoscopy was graded slightly more uncomfortable than virtual CT colonography, but the preparation was clearly the most uncomfortable part of the procedure. Concerning their preference regarding follow-up examinations, 71% of the patients preferred virtual CT colonography, 24% preferred colonoscopy, and 5% had no preference. Twenty-eight percent of the patients preferred virtual CT colonography despite that they thought it was equally or even more uncomfortable than colonoscopy. This was mainly due to the faster procedure (17 patients), the lower physical challenge (14 patients), and the lack of sedation (12 patients) of virtual CT colonography. Factors other than the discomfort related to the examinations play an important role in the patient's preference for virtual CT colonography, namely the faster procedure, the lower physical challenge, and the lack of sedation. Since the preparation plays a major decisive factor in the patient acceptance of virtual CT colonography, more attention should be given to fecal tagging.     

Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare dark-lumen magnetic resonance (MR) colonography with conventional colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Local ethical committee approval and informed consent were obtained. One hundred consecutive patients (56 men, 44 women; mean age +/- standard deviation, 67.7 years +/- 14.7; range, 25-82 years) who were referred for conventional colonoscopy from January 2003 to January 2004 underwent MR colonography and conventional colonoscopy after standard precolonoscopic bowel cleansing. Colonoscopy was performed immediately after MR colonography. For MR colonography, the colon was filled with approximately 2000 mL of tap water. Imaging was performed with a 1.5-T MR unit with patients in the prone position. A T1-weighted three-dimensional volumetric interpolated breath-hold sequence was performed before and 75 seconds after intravenous administration of 0.2 mmol gadobenate dimeglumine per kilogram of body weight. Results of MR colonography were analyzed on a per-polyp and per-patient basis. Findings at colonoscopy were used as the reference for determining accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of MR colonography. RESULTS: Of 100 patients recruited for study, 92 (52 men, 40 women; mean age, 61.5 years +/- 14.5; range, 25-82 years) underwent complete MR and conventional colonoscopy examinations. Forty-three of the 92 patients (47%) had normal findings at conventional colonoscopy. In the other 49 patients (53%), conventional colonoscopy depicted 107 polyps (82 adenomas, 25 hyperplastic polyps) and seven carcinomas. At per-polyp analysis, sensitivity of MR colonography in the detection of adenomatous polyps was 100% for polyps at least 10 mm in diameter and 84.2% for polyps 6-9 mm in diameter. At per-patient analysis, the accuracy of MR colonography was 93.1% (sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 96%) if detection of adenomatous polyps of all sizes was considered. CONCLUSION: Dark-lumen MR colonography is a promising modality with high accuracy for detecting colorectal polyps larger than 5 mm in diameter.     

CT colonography in 546 patients with incomplete colonoscopy

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the positive predictive value (PPV) of computed tomographic (CT) colonography performed in patients who were referred for further examination after incomplete colonoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board; informed consent was waived. We identified 546 consecutive patients (mean age, 64.1 years; 401 [73.4%] women) who underwent CT colonography after incomplete colonoscopy between November 1999 and December 2002. A retrospective chart review was performed if CT colonography depicted endoscopically nonvisualized lesions 6 mm or greater in diameter. Repeat colonoscopy rate, endoluminal findings, and PPV of CT colonography were determined. Subsequent colonoscopic findings were used as the reference standard. RESULTS: In 72 (13.2%) patients, CT colonography depicted 88 endoscopically nonvisualized lesions 6 mm or greater. Of 11 patients reported to have 12 masses (> or =20 mm), at subsequent colonoscopy, one patient had no mass. Eighteen patients had 23 large (10-19-mm) polyps that they were suspected of having, and 47 patients had 53 medium (6-9-mm) polyps that they were suspected of having. At a median follow-up of 31 months (range, 6-42 months), 45 (63%) of 72 patients underwent follow-up colonoscopy because of their CT colonographic findings. Rates of repeat colonoscopy for masses, large polyps, and medium polyps were 100%, 94%, and 45%, respectively. Per-patient and per-lesion PPVs of CT colonography for masses, large polyps, and medium polyps were 90.9% and 91.7%, 64.7% and 70%, and 33.3% and 30.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: CT colonography has the potential to become an accepted technique for evaluation of the nonvisualized part of the colon after incomplete colonoscopy, and it can increase the diagnostic yield of masses and clinically important polyps in this part of the colon.     

Use of multidetector-row CT colonography for detection of colorectal neoplasia in patients referred via the Department of Health "2-Week-wait" initiative

AIM: Patients referred under the Department of Health 2-week wait initiative with symptoms of colorectal cancer frequently undergo whole-colon examination. We investigated the use of computed tomography (CT) colonography as an alternative to colonoscopy in this scenario. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four consecutive patients, referred via the 2-week wait initiative and scheduled for colonoscopy, consented to undergo multidetector CT colonography immediately before endoscopy. The site and morphology of any polyp or cancer detected by CT was noted and comparison made with subsequent colonoscopy. RESULTS: Colonoscopy detected polyps or cancer in 29 patients (53.7%). CT colonography prospectively detected 18 of 41 (44%) polyps of 1-5 mm, three of four (75%) polyps of 6-9 mm, four of four (100%) polyps 10 mm or larger, and five of six (83%) cancers. The missed cancer occurred early in the series and was a perceptive error. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of CT colonography for cancer and polyps 10 mm or greater on a per patient basis were 90, 100, 100 and 98%, respectively. CT detected one renal cancer and one colonic cancer, initially missed due to incomplete colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: CT colonography is a robust technique for investigation of symptomatic patients. The learning curve must be overcome for optimal performance.     

CT colonography using 16-MDCT in the evaluation of colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated CT colonography as a method to stage colorectal cancer and detect polyps and cancers in patients with the disease. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-one consecutive patients thought to have colorectal cancer underwent CT colonography, following a colonoscopy, in both the prone and supine positions. The transverse CT images, multiplanar reconstruction, volume rendered, and virtual colonoscopy images, were independently interpreted by two radiologists. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The diagnostic accuracy of TNM staging was calculated, and the sensitivity of CT colonography for the detection of cancers and polyps, compared with that of colonoscopy, was calculated using repeated colonoscopic and surgical findings as reference standards. The technical result for distention was also graded. RESULTS: In the 51 patients, surgery and follow-up colonoscopy revealed 21 colorectal cancers (one synchronous cancer) and 41 polyps. The diagnostic accuracies of CT colonography for TNM staging were 95%, 85%, and 100% for tumor, node, and metastasis, respectively. The sensitivity of both CT colonography and initial colonoscopy for cancer detection was 100%. The overall sensitivities of CT colonography and initial colonoscopy for polyp detection were 90% and 78%, respectively (p = 0.001). The sensitivities of CT colonography for detecting polyps of 5 mm or smaller, of 6-9 mm, and of 10 mm or larger were 84%, 94%, and 100%, respectively. The mean overall technical results for the supine and prone positions were ranked as 2.80 (SD, +/- 0.4) and 2.78 (+/- 0.4), respectively, but were without statistical significance (p = 0.781). CONCLUSION: Our preliminary data suggest that for patients with clinical suspicion of colorectal cancer, CT colonoscopy is valuable in staging the tumor and in detecting additional polyps or cancers in areas not evaluated by conventional colonoscopy.     

CT colonography: comparison of a colon dissection display versus 3D endoluminal view for the detection of polyps

The purpose of this study was to compare sensitivity, specificity, and postprocessing time of a colon dissection approach to regular 3D-endoluminal workup of computed tomography (CT) colonography for the detection of polypoid lesions. Twenty-one patients who had received conventional colonoscopy after CT colonography were selected; 18 patients had either colon polyps or colon cancer and three had no findings. CT colonography was performed using a 4-channel multi-detector-row (MDR) CT in ten cases and a 16-channel MDR-CT in 11 cases. A blinded reader retrospectively evaluated all colonographies using both viewing methods in a randomized order. Thirty-seven polyps were identified by optical colonoscopy. An overall per-lesion sensitivity of 47.1% for lesions smaller than 5 mm, 56.3% for lesions between 5 mm and 10 mm, and 75.0% for lesion larger than 10 mm was calculated using the colon dissection approach. This compared to an overall per-lesion sensitivity of 35.3% (<5 mm), 81.5% (5–10 mm), and 100.0% (>10 mm) using the endoluminal view. The average time consumption for CT colonography evaluation with the colon dissection software was 10 min versus 38 min using the endoluminal view. A colon dissection approach may provide a significant time advantage for evaluation of CT colonography while obtaining a high sensitivity. It is especially superior in the detection of lesions smaller than 5 mm.     

Detection of colorectal lesions: lower-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of lower-dose multi-detector row helical computed tomographic (CT) colonography with that of conventional colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-eight patients underwent multi-detector row helical CT colonography (beam collimation, 4 x 2.5 mm; table feed, 17.5 mm/sec; voltage, 140 kV; and effective dose, 10 mAs) followed by conventional colonoscopy. Conventional colonoscopy served as the reference standard. Two radiologists interpreted CT colonographic images to assess the presence of polyps or carcinomas. Sensitivity was calculated on both a per-polyp and a per-patient basis. In the latter, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were also calculated. Weighted CT dose index was calculated on the basis of measurements obtained in a standard body phantom. Effective dose was estimated by using commercially available software. RESULTS: CT colonography correctly depicted all 22 carcinomas (sensitivity, 100%) and 52 of 74 polyps (sensitivity, 70.3%). Sensitivity for detection was 100% in all 13 polyps 10 mm or larger in diameter, 83.3% in 20 of 24 polyps 6-9 mm, and 51.3% in 19 of 37 lesions 5 mm or smaller. With regard to the per-patient analysis, CT colonography had a sensitivity of 96.0%, a specificity of 96.6%, a positive predictive value of 94.1%, and a negative predictive value of 97.7%. The total weighted CT dose index for combined prone and supine acquisitions was 2.74 mGy. The simulated effective doses for complete CT colonography were 1.8 mSv in men and 2.4 mSv in women. CONCLUSION: Lower-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography ensures substantial dose reduction while maintaining excellent sensitivity for detection of colorectal carcinomas and polyps larger than 6 mm in diameter.     

MR colonography with barium-based fecal tagging: initial clinical experience

PURPOSE: To assess a strategy for fecal tagging with barium sulfate as an inexpensive tagging agent in conjunction with magnetic resonance (MR) colonography in patients suspected of having colorectal lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients suspected of having colonic lesions because of rectal bleeding, positive fecal occult blood test results, or altered bowel habits underwent MR colonography and subsequent conventional colonoscopy. A 200-mL dose of a barium sulfate-containing contrast agent was ingested with each of four low-fiber meals, beginning 36 hours before the examination. For MR colonography, the colon was filled with tap water. Gadobenate dimeglumine was injected intravenously. Images were acquired 75 seconds after gadobenate dimeglumine administration by using only a T1-weighted three-dimensional gradient-echo sequence. Images were reviewed by two radiologists blinded to conventional colonoscopic data. By using colonoscopy as the reference standard, sensitivity and specificity of MR colonography were determined for detecting colorectal masses. RESULTS: On the basis of MR colonography, 15 polyps of 5-20 mm and 10 carcinomas were detected and later confirmed with conventional colonoscopy. Conventional colonoscopy depicted three additional lesions less than 8 mm in diameter. Thus, sensitivity of MR colonography was 89.3% (25 of 28) for lesions and 91.7% (22 of 24) for patients. CONCLUSION: Barium-tagged MR colonography obviates bowel cleansing and depicts all lesions exceeding 8 mm in diameter.     

Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients

PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) colonography for colorectal polyp and cancer detection by using colonoscopy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred patients underwent CT colonography followed by standard colonoscopy. Bowel preparation consisted of magnesium citrate and polyethylene glycol. After colonic air insufflation, patients underwent scanning in the supine and prone positions with 3-mm collimation during a single breath hold. The transverse CT images, sagittal and coronal reformations, and three-dimensional endoluminal images were interpreted by two radiologists independently, and then a consensus reading was performed. CT colonographic findings were correlated with standard colonoscopic and histologic findings. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography for polyp detection were 90.1% (164 of 182) and 72.0% (85 of 118), respectively. By using direct polyp matching, the overall sensitivity was 69.7% (365 of 524). The sensitivity was 90% (74 of 82) for the detection of polyps 10 mm or larger, 80.1% (113 of 141) for polyps 5.0-9.9 mm, and 59.1% (178 of 301) for polyps smaller than 5 mm. The sensitivity was 94% (64 of 68) for the detection of adenomas 10 mm or larger, 82% (72 of 88) for adenomas 5.0-9.9 mm, and 66.9% (95 of 142) for adenomas smaller than 5 mm. CT colonography was used to identify all eight carcinomas. CONCLUSION: CT colonography has excellent sensitivity for the detection of clinically important colorectal polyps and cancer.     

Multislice spiral CT colonography in the evaluation of colorectal neoplasms

PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of multislice spiral CT colonography: 1) in the diagnosis and staging of colorectal carcinoma; 2) in the evaluation of the proximal colon in patients with stenosing neoplasms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There were 33 patients (21 males and 12 females) with known colorectal carcinoma diagnosed by conventional colonoscopy. All patients enrolled in the study underwent both conventional colonoscopy followed by CT colonography on the same day. CT examination was performed using a multislice spiral CT scanner (Somatom Plus 4 Volume Zoom; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). Imaging parameters were: slice collimation, 1 mm; slice thickness, 1 mm; table speed, 8 mm/sec; reconstruction interval, 1 mm; mAs, 80; kVp, 120; acquisition time, 25-32 sec. Image analysis was performed using a software package with volume-rendering capabilities (Vitrea 2.6; Vital Images, Minneapolis, USA). Image analysis consisted in the evaluation of: 1) number, size, and location of the lesions; 2) primary tumor staging. For the purposes of tumor staging, we utilized the TNM staging system. For the evaluation of parameters T and N, histologic examination on resected surgical specimens and lymph nodes served as the standard of reference. The presence of hepatic metastases was confirmed by means of partial surgical resection in patients with single metastasis or by means of intraoperative ultrasonography in patients with multiple metastases. RESULTS: Conventional colonoscopy detected 33 carcinomas and 4 polyps and was incomplete in 9 cases (27.2% of all examinations) due to stenosing lesions. CT colonography provided adequate visualization of the whole colon in all patients with identification of 35 carcinomas (33 primary and 2 synchronous) and 10 polyps. Therefore, CT colonography correctly detected all lesions seen at conventional colonoscopy and yielded the additional identification of 2 synchronous tumors and 6 polyps located in the colon proximal to the primary stenosing neoplasm. Primary tumor staging with CT colonography was correct in 32 of 33 patients (accuracy, 96.9%) CONCLUSIONS: Multislice spiral CT colonography detected all primary neoplasms, provided correct staging of 96.9% of tumors and visualized the whole colon even in patients with stenosing lesions. Considering the current limitations of the other procedures and the possibility of assessing both the colon and the extracolonic structures, multislice spiral CT colonography can be proposed as the initial diagnostic modality for pre-operative evaluation of patients with colorectal carcinoma.     

CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis

OBJECTIVE: For proper evaluation of the accuracy of CT colonography, prospective multiinstitutional trials would be ideal. Until these trials are available, data can be collectively analyzed. The purpose of this study is to use metaanalysis to assess the reported accuracy of CT colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy for detecting colorectal polyps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles comparing CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy were identified, and a standardized form was used to extract relevant study data. Fisher's exact test and the Mantel-Haenszel test were used for pooling of data. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was selected to determine sensitivity and specificity, and the Kruskal-Wallis exact test was used to identify trends relating to polyp size. Meta-analysis methods were used to test strength of results. Comparisons were made for the percentage of polyps detected grouped by size (> or = 10 mm, 6-9 mm, < or = 5 mm) and the percentage of patients identified who had polyps of the same size. RESULTS: Fourteen studies fulfilled all the study inclusion criteria and gave a total of 1,324 patients and 1,411 polyps. The pooled per-patient sensitivity for polyps 10 mm or larger was (sensitivity [95% CI]) 0.88 (0.84-0.93), for polyps 6-9 mm it was 0.84 (0.80-0.89), and for polyps 5 mm or smaller it was 0.65 (0.57-0.73). The pooled per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 10 mm or larger was 0.81 (0.76-0.85), for polyps 6-9 mm it was 0.62 (0.58-0.67), and for polyps 5 mm or smaller it was 0.43 (0.39-0.47). Sensitivity for detection of polyps increased as the polyp size increased (p < 0.00005). The pooled overall specificity for detection of polyps larger than 10 mm was 0.95 (0.94-0.97). CONCLUSION: The specificity and sensitivity of CT colonography are high for polyps larger than 10 mm.     

Screening for colorectal neoplasia with CT colonography: initial experience from the 1st year of coverage by third-party payers

PURPOSE: To evaluate our experience in the 1st year of computed tomographic (CT) colonography screening since the initiation of local third-party payer coverage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was waived. Over a 1-year period that ended on April 27, 2005, 1110 consecutive adults (585 women, 525 men; mean age, 58.1 years) underwent primary CT colonography screening. More than 99% were covered by managed care agreements. CT colonographic interpretation was performed with primary three-dimensional polyp detection, and the final results were issued within 2 hours. Patients with large (> or =10-mm) polyps were referred for same-day optical colonoscopy, and patients with medium-sized (6-9-mm) lesions had the option of immediate optical colonoscopy or short-term CT colonography surveillance. RESULTS: Large colorectal polyps were identified at CT colonography in 43 (3.9%) of 1110 patients. Medium-sized lesions were identified in 77 (6.9%) patients, 31 (40%) of whom chose optical colonoscopy and 46 (60%) of whom chose CT colonography surveillance. Concordant lesions were identified in 65 of 71 patients who underwent subsequent optical colonoscopy (positive predictive value, 91.5%). Sixty-one (86%) of 71 optical colonoscopic procedures were performed on the same day as CT colonography, thereby avoiding the need for repeat bowel preparation. The actual endoscopic referral rate for positive findings at CT colonography was 6.4% (71 of 1110 patients). The demand for CT colonography screening from primary care physicians and their patients increased throughout the study period. CONCLUSION: As a primary colorectal screening tool, CT colonography covered by third-party payers has an acceptably low endoscopic referral rate and a high concordance of positive findings at optical colonoscopy.