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.     

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.     

CT colonography: multiobserver diagnostic performance

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate multiobserver diagnostic performance and reader agreement for colorectal polyp detection in a well-characterized cohort of patients with increased number of polyps, compared with an average-risk patient, with colonoscopy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 70 patients suspected of having polyps was examined with spiral computed tomographic (CT) colonography, with colonoscopy performed the same day. After air insufflation per rectum, supine and prone images were obtained with single-detector row CT (5-mm collimation, 8-mm table increment, 2-mm reconstruction interval). Images were analyzed independently by four experienced abdominal radiologists using two-dimensional multiplanar reformation followed by selective use of three-dimensional endoscopic volume-rendered images. Data were analyzed both per polyp and per patient. RESULTS: Analysis per polyp demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.68 for lesions 10 mm or larger (n = 40), with 75% agreement among the four readers. Analysis per patient demonstrated improved detection and agreement, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.88 for patients with polyps or cancers 10 mm or larger (n = 28), with 94% agreement. When sensitivity and receiver operating characteristic analyses were analyzed per polyp size threshold, results among readers converged and peaked at polyp diameters of approximately 10 mm. CONCLUSION: In this patient cohort, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement with single-detector row CT colonography was sufficient for detection of patients with lesions 10 mm or larger, with more variable results for smaller polyps.     

Nonadenomatous polyps at CT colonography: prevalence, size distribution, and detection rates

PURPOSE: To prospectively investigate with computed tomographic (CT) colonography the prevalence and size distribution of nonadenomatous polyps in asymptomatic adults and to compare the detection rates of adenomatous and nonadenomatous polyps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1233 asymptomatic adults (mean age, 57.8 years; 505 women, 728 men) underwent same-day CT colonography and optical colonoscopy procedures. CT colonoscopy studies were interpreted prospectively with a primary three-dimensional approach immediately before optical colonoscopy. Statistical analysis was performed with the chi(2) test. Size, prevalence, and by-polyp detection differences were compared between adenomatous and nonadenomatous polyps. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-six (57.7%) colorectal polyps identified at optical colonoscopy in 410 (33.3%) patients were nonadenomatous; of these lesions, 622 (82.3%) were diminutive (相似文献   

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.     

CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction

PURPOSE: To investigate the sensitivity and specificity of polyp detection and the image quality of computed tomographic (CT) colonography at different radiation dose levels and to study effective doses reported in literature on CT colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT colonography and colonoscopy were performed with 100 mAs in 50 consecutive patients at high risk for colorectal cancer; 50- and 30-mAs CT colonographic examinations were simulated with controlled addition of noise to raw transmission measurements. One radiologist randomly evaluated all original and simulated images for the presence of polyps and scored image quality. Differences in image quality were assessed with the Wilcoxon rank test. Scan protocols from the literature and recent (unpublished) updates were collected. RESULTS: In nine of 10 patients with polyps 5 mm in diameter or larger (sensitivity, 90%) and in seven of 17 patients with polyps smaller than 5 mm, polyps were correctly identified with CT colonography at all dose levels. Specificity for patients without polyps 5 mm or larger was 53%-60% at all dose levels and for patients without any polyps was 26% (at 100 and 50 mAs) and 48% (at 30 mAs). Image quality decreased significantly as the dose level decreased. The median effective doses (supine and prone positions) calculated from protocols reported in the literature and updates were 7.8 and 8.8 mSv, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although image quality decreases significantly at 30 mAs (3.6 mSv), polyp detection remains unimpaired. The median dose for CT colonography at institutions that perform CT colonographic research is currently 8.8 mSv.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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     

Protocol optimization of multidetector computed tomography colonography using pig colonic phantoms

OBJECTIVE: The introduction of multidetector computed tomography (CT) increases the possibility of enhanced polyp detection using CT colonography. The effects of collimation and tube currents on polyp detection were investigated in pig colonic phantoms to determine the optimal scanning parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty pig colons were prepared, and polyps with diameters ranging from 3 mm to 15 mm were created and randomly distributed. There was a total of 60 polyps; 20 polyps were 3 to 5 mm in size, 21 polyps 6 to 9 mm, and 19 polyps 10 to 15 mm. The pig colons were sealed, distended with air, submerged in water, and were arranged to mimic the in vivo arrangement. CT was performed using a 4-row multidetector CT scanner with collimations of 1, 2.5, and 5 mm, a pitch of 1.75, and mA of 100. A low-dose protocol (mA of 50) was added with a collimation of 1 mm. Two blinded observers independently analyzed the datasets. RESULTS:: The overall sensitivities of CT colonography were 94.2% with 1-mm collimation, 80% with 2.5-mm collimation, and 75% with 5-mm collimation. Considering the sensitivity of each protocol for the size of the polyps, the 1-mm collimation protocol had a sensitivity of 87.5% for 3- to 5-mm polyps, 95.2% sensitivity for 6- to 9-mm polyps, and 100% sensitivity for 10- to 15-mm polyps; the 2.5-mm protocol had 50%, 92.9%, and 97.4% sensitivities, respectively; and the 5-mm protocol had 47.5%, 88.1%, and 89.5% sensitivities, respectively, for the respective polyp size group. A significant difference in sensitivity among the protocols was present in the 3- to 5-mm polyps. No significant difference was seen between the standard- and the low-dose protocols. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of multidetector CT colonography for detecting polyps larger than 5 mm is robust over a range of collimation in pig colonic phantoms. However, reliable detection of polyps 5 mm or smaller requires a 1-mm collimation. Sensitivity is not influenced by lowering the mA from 100 to 50.     

Polyp measurement and size categorisation by CT colonography: effect of observer experience in a multi-centre setting

The extent measurement error on CT colonography influences polyp categorisation according to established management guidelines is studied using twenty-eight observers of varying experience to classify polyps seen at CT colonography as either ‘medium’ (maximal diameter 6-9 mm) or ‘large’ (maximal diameter 10 mm or larger). Comparison was then made with the reference diameter obtained in each patient via colonoscopy. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess agreement between observer measurements and colonoscopy, and differences in measurement and categorisation was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-squared test statistics respectively. Observer measurements on average underestimated the diameter of polyps when compared to the reference value, by approximately 2–3 mm, irrespective of observer experience. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement were relatively wide for all observer groups, and had sufficient span to encompass different size categories for polyps. There were 167 polyp observations and 135 (81%) were correctly categorised. Of the 32 observations that were miscategorised, 5 (16%) were overestimations and 27 (84%) were underestimations (i.e. large polyps misclassified as medium). Caution should be exercised for polyps whose colonographic diameter is below but close to the 1-cm boundary threshold in order to avoid potential miscategorisation of advanced adenomas.     

Diagnostic performance of CT colonography for the detection of colorectal polyps.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic value of CT colonography for the detection of colorectal polyps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 2004 to December 2005, 399 patients underwent CT colonography and follow-up conventional colonoscopy. We excluded cases of advanced colorectal cancer. We retrospectively analyzed the CT colonography findings and follow-up conventional colonoscopy findings of 113 patients who had polyps more than 6 mm in diameter. Radiologists using 3D and 2D computer generated displays interpreted the CT colonography images. The colonoscopists were aware of the CT colonography findings before the procedure. RESULTS: CT colonography detected 132 polyps in 107 of the 113 patients and conventional colonoscopy detected 114 colorectal polyps more than 6 mm in diameter in 87 of the 113 patients. The sensitivity of CT colonography analyzed per polyp was 91% (41/45) for polyps more than 10 mm in diameter and 89% (101/114) for polyps more than 6 mm in diameter. Thirteen polyps were missed by CT colonography and were detected on follow-up conventional colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: CT colonography is a sensitive diagnostic tool for the detection of colorectal polyps and adequate bowel preparation, optimal bowel distention and clinical experience are needed to reduce the rate of missing appropriate lesions.     

Spiral CT colonography: reader agreement and diagnostic performance with two- and three-dimensional image-display techniques

PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance and reader agreement with two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) display techniques for detecting colorectal polyps with spiral computed tomographic (CT) colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A test set of 30 colonic segments was developed from spiral CT colonographic studies (12 with polyps and 18 without). The 12 segments with polyps contained 22 lesions (11 polyps <10 mm, 11 polyps or cancers >/=10 mm), with all findings verified with colonoscopy. Three specific 2D and 3D image-display techniques were tested. Three experienced abdominal radiologists independently analyzed each test case and were retested 6 weeks later. RESULTS: The results of readings 1 and 2 were similar for all image-display techniques among the readers. Pooled segment results were sensitivity of 89%-92% and specificity of 72%-83%. Pooled polyp size results for sensitivity and positive predictive value were 77%-86% and 74%-86% (all polyps, n = 22), 91%-100% and 85%-100% (polyps or cancers >10 mm, n = 11), and 61%-73% and 61%-80% (polyps 5-9 mm, n = 11), respectively. Overall intraobserver agreement was good for the three display techniques (kappa, 0.60-1.00); however, interobserver agreement for 2D multiplanar reformation was lower (kappa, 0.53-0.80). CONCLUSION: Among experienced abdominal radiologists, similar diagnostic performance in polyp detection was found among 2D multiplanar reformation and 3D display techniques, although individual cases showed improved characterization with 3D display techniques. Evaluation of reader agreement demonstrated good intraobserver agreement, with variable interobserver agreement.     

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

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the effect of interpreter confidence on the likelihood that a lesion detected on CT colonography (CTC) will correspond to a matched polyp seen on optical colonoscopy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Same-day CTC and optical colonoscopy were performed on 1,339 asymptomatic adults. A standard matching algorithm for polyp size and location was used. For each potential polyp detected on CTC, the level of diagnostic confidence was prospectively rated on a 3-point scale (1, least certain; 2, intermediate; and 3, most certain). RESULTS: For CTC-detected lesions 6 mm or larger, diagnostic confidence levels of 1, 2, and 3 corresponded to matched polyps on optical colonoscopy in 33.3% (45/135), 50.0% (103/206), and 66.8% (157/235) of cases, respectively (p < 0.01). Similar trends were present for categories of lesions that measured 6-7 mm, 8-9 mm, and 10 mm or larger, rising to a match rate of 82.1% (55/67) for lesions 10 mm or larger that were diagnosed with a level-3 confidence rating. The likelihood that a matched polyp was adenomatous increased with greater levels of diagnostic confidence. Of note, level-3 confidence for lesions measuring 8-9 mm on CTC more often yielded a matching neoplasm on optical colonoscopy than level-1 or level-2 confidence for lesions measuring 10 mm or larger (60.3% [35/58] vs 20.8% [10/48]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Greater diagnostic confidence for an individual lesion detected on CTC correlates with a significantly increased likelihood that a matching polyp will be found on optical colonoscopy and that this matched polyp will be neoplastic. Although polyp size represents the primary criterion for CTC screening algorithms, this data could help guide the decision to opt for noninvasive CTC surveillance versus optical colonoscopy for polypectomy.     

Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences

Objective

To assess the variability and systematic differences in polyp measurements on optical colonoscopy and CT colonography.

Materials

Gastroenterologists measured 51 polyps by visual estimation, forceps comparison and linear probe. CT colonography observers randomly assessed polyp size two-dimensionally (abdominal and intermediate window) and three-dimensionally (manually and semi-automatically). Linear mixed models were used to assess the variability and systematic differences between CT colonography and optical colonoscopy techniques.

Results

The variability of forceps and linear probe measurements was comparable and both showed less variability than measurement by visual assessment. Measurements by linear probe were 0.7 mm smaller than measurements by visual assessment or by forceps. The variability of all CT colonography techniques was lower than for measurements by forceps or visual assessment and sometimes lower (only 2D intermediate window and manual 3D) compared with measurements by linear probe. All CT colonography measurements judged polyps to be larger than optical colonoscopy, with differences ranging from 0.7 to 2.3 mm.

Conclusion

A linear probe does not reduce the measurement variability of endoscopists compared with the forceps. Measurement differences between observers on CT colonography were usually smaller than at optical colonoscopy. Polyps appeared larger when using various CT colonography techniques than when measured during optical colonoscopy.     

Polyp measurement reliability, accuracy, and discrepancy: optical colonoscopy versus CT colonography with pig colonic specimens

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the reliability and accuracy of optical colonoscopy and computed tomographic (CT) colonography in polyp measurement, by using direct measurement as the reference standard, and to understand the basis for measurement discrepancy between both modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-six simulated polyps that ranged from 3 to 15 mm were constructed by using pig colons obtained from an abattoir. Approval of the animal care and use committee for the study was not required. CT colonographic measurement was performed by two independent radiologists by using two-dimensional (2D) optimized multiplanar reformatted planes and three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal views. Optical colonoscopic measurement was performed by two independent gastroenterologists by using open biopsy forceps. Interobserver agreement, measurement error, measurement discrepancy defined as the result of subtracting the optical colonoscopic measurement from the CT colonographic measurement, and false-mismatch (ie, designation of matched polyps as mismatched between both modalities) rates according to different matching criteria were analyzed. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.879 (95% confidence interval: 0.780, 0.930) for optical colonoscopy, 0.979 (95% confidence interval: 0.956, 0.989) for 2D CT colonography, and 0.985 (95% confidence interval: 0.976, 0.990) for 3D CT colonography. The mean standardized polyp size +/- standard deviation for each observer was 76.3% +/- 14.7 and 85.3% +/- 18.8 for optical colonoscopy, 104.6% +/- 11.6 and 101.6% +/- 10.1 for 2D CT colonography, and 114% +/- 12.4 and 113.4% +/- 13.2 for 3D CT colonography. These values indicated that there was a statistically significant difference among the methods (P<.001). Measurement discrepancy was not proportional to polyp size. A percentage-of-error criterion showed increasing false-mismatch rates with decreasing polyp size, whereas a fixed margin-of-error criterion resulted in more uniform false-mismatch rates across polyp size. CONCLUSION: CT colonography is more reliable and accurate than optical colonoscopy for polyp measurement. A fixed margin-of-error criterion is better than a percentage-of-error criterion for polyp matching between CT colonography and optical colonoscopy with open biopsy forceps.     

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.