Single-center study comparing computed tomography colonography with conventional colonoscopy

AIM： To compare the results from computed tomography （CT） colonography with conventional colonoscopy in symptomatic patients referred for colonoscopy. METHODS： The study included 227 adult outpatients, mean age 60 years, with appropriate indications for colonoscopy. CT colonography and colonoscopy were performed on the same day in a metropolitan teaching hospital. Colonoscopists were initially blinded to the results of CT colonography but there was segmental unblinding during the procedure. The primary outcome measures were the sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography for the identification of polyps seen at colonoscopy （i.e. analysis by polyp）. Secondary outcome measures included an analysis by patient, extracolonic findings at CT colonography, adverse events with both procedures and patient acceptance and preference. RESULTS： Twenty-five patients （11%） were excluded from the analysis because of incomplete colonoscopy or poor bowel preparation that affected either CT colonography, colonoscopy or both procedures. Polyps and masses （usually cancers） were detected at colonoscopy and CT colonography in 35% and 42% of patients, respectively. Of nine patients with a final diagnosis of cancer, eight （89%） were identified by CT colonography as masses （5） or polyps （3）. For polyps analyzed according to polyp, the overall sensitivity of CT colonography was 50% （95% CI, 39%-61%） but this increased to 71% （95% CI, 52%-85%） for polyps ≥ 6 mm in size. Similarly, specificity for all polyps was 48% （95% CI, 39%-58%） increasing to 67% （95% CI, 56%-76%） for polyps ≥6 mm. Adverse events were uncommon but included one colonic perforation at colonoscopy, Patient acceptance was high for both procedures but preference favoured CT colonography. CONCLUSION： Although CT colonography was more sensitive in this study than in some previous studies, the procedure is not yet sensitive enough for widespread application in symptomatic patients.     

Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To date, computed tomographic (CT) colonography has been compared with an imperfect test, colonoscopy, and has been mainly assessed in patients with positive screening test results or symptoms. Therefore, the available data may not apply to screening of patients with a personal or family history of colorectal polyps or cancer (increased risk). We prospectively investigated the ability of CT colonography to identify individuals with large (>or=10 mm) colorectal polyps in consecutive patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. METHODS: A total of 249 consecutive patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer underwent CT colonography before colonoscopy. Two reviewers interpreted CT colonography examinations independently. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were determined after meticulous matching of CT colonography with colonoscopy. Unexplained large false-positive findings were verified with a second-look colonoscopy. RESULTS: In total, 31 patients (12%) had 48 large polyps at colonoscopy. This included 8 patients with 8 large polyps that were overlooked initially and detected at the second-look colonoscopy. In 6 of 8 patients, the missed polyp was the only large lesion. With CT colonography, 84% of patients (26/31) with large polyp(s) were identified, paired for a specificity of 92% (200-201/218). Positive and negative predictive values were 59%-60% (26/43-44) and 98% (200-201/205-206), respectively. CT colonography detected 75%-77% (36-37/48) of large polyps, with 9 of the missed lesions being flat. CONCLUSIONS: CT colonography and colonoscopy have a similar ability to identify individuals with large polyps in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. The large proportion of missed flat lesions warrants further study.     

A prospective single centre study comparing computed tomography pneumocolon against colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT) pneumocolon in the detection of colorectal neoplasms. METHODS: A total of 201 consecutive patients with colorectal symptoms or requiring surveillance for colorectal neoplasms underwent both conventional colonoscopy and CT pneumocolon. RESULTS: On conventional colonoscopy 13 invasive colorectal carcinomas were detected in 13 patients, and 118 polyps in 63 patients (14 polyps were > or =1 cm in diameter, 25 were 6-9 mm, and 79 were < or =5 mm). CT pneumocolon detected all 13 cancers, two false positive cancers, but only 20 polyps (seven were > or =1 cm). This resulted in a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval (CI) 87-100%) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 97-100%) for detection of invasive carcinoma, and a sensitivity of 73% (95% CI 56-90%) and specificity of 94% (95% CI 91-98%) for detection of invasive carcinoma and/or > or =1 cm polyps. CT pneumocolon also identified invasive carcinoma not seen at colonoscopy because of incomplete examination in three patients, and detected metastases in six colorectal carcinoma patients and extracolonic carcinoma in a further seven patients. CONCLUSIONS: CT pneumocolon had a high sensitivity and specificity for detection of invasive colorectal carcinoma but not colorectal polyps. CT pneumocolon may be suitable for initial investigation of patients with symptoms of colorectal malignancy.     

Prospective comparison of contrast enhanced CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasms in a single institutional study using second-look colonoscopy with discrepant results

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of death from cancer in Western countries. Early detection by colorectal cancer screening can effectively cut its mortality rate. CT colonography represents a promising, minimally invasive alternative to conventional methods of colorectal carcinoma screening. AIMS: The purpose of this prospective single institutional study was to compare the abilities of routine clinical CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy to detect colorectal neoplasms using second-look colonoscopy to clarify discrepant results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CT colonography was performed in 100 symptomatic patients using contrast enhanced multidetector CT followed by conventional colonoscopy on the same day. If results were discrepant, a second-look colonoscopy was performed after unblinding. CT colonographic findings were compared with those of conventional colonoscopy. RESULTS: Conventional colonoscopy found 122 colorectal neoplasms in 49 patients. The overall sensitivity of CT colonography at detecting patients with at least one polyp 6 mm or larger was 76% and its specificity was 88%. Its by-patient sensitivity for polyps 10 mm or larger was 95% and its specificity was 98%. By-polyp sensitivities were 71% for polyps 10 mm or larger, and 61% for polyps 6 mm or larger. A second-look colonoscopy was performed in 19 patients and two initial false-positive findings of CT colonography were reclassified as true-positive. For conventional colonoscopy, this produced a by-polyp sensitivity of 94% for detection of lesions 6 mm and larger. CONCLUSIONS: CT colonography had both a high by-patient sensitivity and specificity for detection of clinically important colorectal neoplasms 10 mm or larger. This suggests that CT colonography has the potential to become a valuable clinical screening method for colorectal neoplasms.     

Virtual colonography: Identification and differentiation of colorectal lesions using multi-detector computed tomography

Objective. Early detection of precancerous or malignant lesions may be decisive for prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer. In this prospective feasibility study, multi-detector spiral computed tomography (CT) colonography was compared with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. Material and methods. Seventy-eight patients underwent CT colonography (standard colonoscopy preparation, distension with room air, prone and supine position) immediately before colonoscopy. Sixty-five (83%) were asymptomatic screening subjects, while the rest had symptoms suggestive of colorectal disease. Presence, location, and size of lesions were prospectively assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CT colonography were calculated using conventional colonoscopy as the reference standard. Results. Conventional colonoscopy was normal in 52 patients. In 26 patients a total of 49 polyps and 3 carcinomas were identified. All three carcinomas and 39 polyps (80%) were identified by CT colonography. Seven of 7 polyps ≥10 mm (100%), 13 of 16 polyps of 6 to 9 mm (81%), and 19 of 26 polyps ≤5 mm (73%) in diameter were identified. Fourteen false-positive findings (10 of which were ≤5 mm in diameter) were related to 8 patients (specificity at the patient level was 86%). In 10 patients, a total of 10 polyps were missed by CT colonography, 7 of which were ≤5 mm in diameter. Conclusions. In this feasibility study, multi-detector spiral CT colonography allows accurate detection of polyps>5 mm in diameter, but at the expense of low specificity in the small size range.     

Virtual colonography: identification and differentiation of colorectal lesions using multi-detector computed tomography

OBJECTIVE: Early detection of precancerous or malignant lesions may be decisive for prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer. In this prospective feasibility study, multi-detector spiral computed tomography (CT) colonography was compared with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-eight patients underwent CT colonography (standard colonoscopy preparation, distension with room air, prone and supine position) immediately before colonoscopy. Sixty-five (83%) were asymptomatic screening subjects, while the rest had symptoms suggestive of colorectal disease. Presence, location, and size of lesions were prospectively assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CT colonography were calculated using conventional colonoscopy as the reference standard. RESULTS: Conventional colonoscopy was normal in 52 patients. In 26 patients a total of 49 polyps and 3 carcinomas were identified. All three carcinomas and 39 polyps (80%) were identified by CT colonography. Seven of 7 polyps > or = 10 mm (100%), 13 of 16 polyps of 6 to 9 mm (81%), and 19 of 26 polyps < or = 5 mm (73%) in diameter were identified. Fourteen false-positive findings (10 of which were < or = 5 mm in diameter) were related to 8 patients (specificity at the patient level was 86%). In 10 patients, a total of 10 polyps were missed by CT colonography, 7 of which were < or = 5 mm in diameter. CONCLUSIONS: In this feasibility study, multi-detector spiral CT colonography allows accurate detection of polyps > 5 mm in diameter, but at the expense of low specificity in the small size range.     

Detection of colorectal polyps by multislice CT colonography with ultra-low-dose technique: comparison with high-resolution videocolonoscopy

BACKGROUND: This prospective study compared multislice CT colonography with ultra-low-dose technique to high-resolution videocolonoscopy as the standard for detection of colorectal cancer and polyps. METHODS: After standard bowel preparation, 115 patients underwent multislice CT colonography with an ultra-low-dose multislice CT colonography protocol immediately before videocolonoscopy. After noise reduction by using a mathematical algorithm, ultra-low-dose multislice CT colonographic images were analyzed in blinded fashion, and the results were compared with the results of high-resolution videocolonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 150 lesions were detected by high-resolution videocolonoscopy in 115 patients. For ultra-low-dose multislice CT colonography, sensitivities for detection of polyps less than 5 mm in size, 5 to 10 mm, and greater than 10 mm in diameter were 76%, 91%, and 100%, respectively. Although the sensitivity for detection of flat lesions was only 50%, the sensitivity and the specificity for detection of polyps 5 mm or greater in size were 94% and 84%, respectively. For adenomatous lesions greater than 5 mm in size, sensitivity was 94% and specificity was 92%. The overall specificity was 79%. The calculated effective radiation dose ranged between 0.75 and 1.25 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with high-resolution videocolonoscopy, ultra-low-dose multislice CT colonography has excellent sensitivity and specificity for detection of colorectal lesions 5 mm or greater in size, and the radiation exposure is relatively low. However, before this technique can be generally recommended for colorectal screening, further improvement in the detection of flat and extremely small lesions must be achieved.     

Virtual colonoscopy in the detection of colonic polyps and neoplasms

First introduced in 1994, CT colonography (Virtual colonoscopy) has emerged as an accurate, non-invasive test that will likely play a future role in colorectal cancer screening. Over the past 3 years, there have been dramatic improvements in both hardware and software technology relating to CT colonography resulting in shorter scan times, enhanced user-friendliness and improved performance statistics. Published results show the accuracy of CT colonography to be comparable to conventional colonoscopy for detection of polyps >6mm in size with few false-positives. While many of the technical aspects of CT colonography have now been standardised current interest focuses on the development of faecal tagging agents to avoid full bowel catharsis and the use of low dose multislice CT acquisition to reduce patient radiation exposure. This chapter will summarise the development of CT colonography to date, document its published performance in detection of colorectal polyps and cancers, and review its current and potential future uses.     

CT colonography --"virtual colonoscopy"--a current review

This article reviews published data regarding CT colonography and discusses both technical and medical aspects of its development over the last 10 years. Although colonography can be performed using MRI instead of CT, mainly CT aspects are dealt with. The technical development of CT to the current generation of Multi-detector-row-CT is explained, and the influence of various factors (slice thickness, dose, patient preparation, post processing) is discussed. The method has a high sensitivity and specificity as well as a high negative predictive value for the detection of polyps > or = 1 cm, but is currently still insufficient in the detection of polyps < 5 mm. It is a valid alternative after incomplete optical colonoscopy and an alternative in patients with "high-risk" for conventional endoscopy. In the future it may become an alternative for conventional endoscopy in screening programs for colorectal cancer.     

Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study

OBJECTIVES: Computed tomographic (CT) colonography or virtual colonoscopy is a new diagnostic method for the colon and rectum, developed on the basis of spiral computed axial tomography and employing virtual reality technology. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of CT colonography compared with colonoscopy in a prospective, blinded study in one single institution in Italy. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients randomly selected among those attending the open-access endoscopy unit for diagnostic colonoscopy underwent colonoscopy and spiral CT. The images obtained were transmitted to generate the virtual colonoscopy pictures. A supervisor compared the results with the findings of conventional colonoscopy. RESULTS: CT colonography diagnosed seven of eight tumors, one being missed because the patient had been inadequately prepared. In 28 patients, CT colonography identified 26 polyps of 45 (57.8% sensitivity, 92.6% specificity, 86.7% positive predictive value), regardless of their size. The sensitivity in detecting colonic polyps was 31.8% (7/22) in the first 25 cases and 91.6% (11/12) in the last 20 patients. CT colonography missed one flat adenoma, some angioectasias and colonic lesions because of portal hypertension in one patient, Crohn's disease ulcers in two patients, and ulcerative colitis lesions in three. CONCLUSIONS: CT colonography shows poor sensitivity for identifying colonic polyps and does not always detect neoplastic lesions. Flat lesions are impossible to see by this method.     

Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study used a low lesion prevalence population reflective of the screening setting to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of computerized tomographic (CT) colonography for detection of colorectal polyps. METHODS: This prospective, blinded study comprised 703 asymptomatic persons at higher-than-average risk for colorectal cancer who underwent CT colonography followed by same-day colonoscopy. Two of 3 experienced readers interpreted each CT colonography examination. RESULTS: Overall lesion prevalence for adenomas >/=1 cm in diameter was 5%. Seventy percent of all lesions were proximal to the descending colon. With colonoscopy serving as the gold standard, CT colonography detected 34%, 32%, 73%, and 63% of the 59 polyps >/=1 cm for readers 1, 2, 3, and double-reading, respectively; and 35%, 29%, 57%, and 54% of the 94 polyps 5-9 mm for readers 1, 2, 3, and double-reading, respectively. Specificity for CT colonography ranged from 95% to 98% and 86% to 95% for >1 cm and 5-9-mm polyps, respectively. Interobserver variability was high for CT colonography with kappa statistic values ranging from -0.67 to 0.89. CONCLUSIONS: In a low prevalence setting, polyp detection rates at CT colonography are well below those at colonoscopy. These rates are less than previous reports based largely on high lesion prevalence cohorts. High interobserver variability warrants further investigation but may be due to the low prevalence of polyps in this cohort and the high impact on total sensitivity of each missed polyp. Specificity, based on large numbers, is high and exhibits excellent agreement among observers.     

Comparison of the relative sensitivity of CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema for screen detection of colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In a population reflective of a screening setting, our aim was to compare the relative sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT) colonography with double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) for detection of colorectal polyps and to assess the added value of double reading at CT colonography, using endoscopy as the arbiter. METHODS: This prospective, blinded study comprised 837 asymptomatic persons at higher than average risk for colorectal cancer who underwent CT colonography followed by same-day DCBE. Examinations with polyps > or =5 mm in diameter were referred to colonoscopy. RESULTS: CT colonography readers detected 56%-79% of polyps > or =10 mm in diameter. In comparison, the sensitivity at DCBE varied between 39% and 56% for the 31 polyps > or =1 cm. All of the readers detected more polyps at CT colonography than DCBE, but the difference was statistically significant for only a single reader (P = 0.02). Relative specificity for polyps > or =10 mm on a per-patient basis ranged from 96% to 99% at CT colonography, and 99%-100% at DCBE. Doubly read CT colonography detected significantly more polyps than DCBE (81% vs. 45% for polyps > or =1 cm [P = <0.01], and 72% vs. 44% for polyps 5-9 mm [P < or = 0.01]). CONCLUSIONS: Double-read CT colonography is significantly more sensitive in detecting polyps than single-read double contrast barium enema. DCBE was significantly more specific than CT colonography.     

Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND: In addition to detecting colorectal neoplasia, abdominal computed tomography (CT) with colonography technique (CTC) can also detect unsuspected extracolonic cancers and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of this combined abdominal CT screening strategy are unknown. METHODS: A computerized Markov model was constructed to simulate the occurrence of colorectal neoplasia, extracolonic malignant neoplasm, and AAA in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 subjects from the United States who were 50 years of age. Simulated screening with CTC, using a 6-mm polyp size threshold for reporting, was compared with a competing model of optical colonoscopy (OC), both without and with abdominal ultrasonography for AAA detection (OC-US strategy). RESULTS: In the simulated population, CTC was the dominant screening strategy, gaining an additional 1458 and 462 life-years compared with the OC and OC-US strategies and being less costly, with a savings of $266 and $449 per person, respectively. The additional gains for CTC were largely due to a decrease in AAA-related deaths, whereas the modeled benefit from extracolonic cancer downstaging was a relatively minor factor. At sensitivity analysis, OC-US became more cost-effective only when the CTC sensitivity for large polyps dropped to 61% or when broad variations of costs were simulated, such as an increase in CTC cost from $814 to $1300 or a decrease in OC cost from $1100 to $500.With the OC-US approach, suboptimal compliance had a strong negative influence on efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The estimated mortality from CT-induced cancer was less than estimated colonoscopy-related mortality (8 vs 22 deaths), both of which were minor compared with the positive benefit from screening. CONCLUSION: When detection of extracolonic findings such as AAA and extracolonic cancer are considered in addition to colorectal neoplasia in our model simulation, CT colonography is a dominant screening strategy (ie, more clinically effective and more cost-effective) over both colonoscopy and colonoscopy with 1-time ultrasonography.     

Predicting proximal advanced neoplasms at screening sigmoidoscopy

PURPOSE: This study was designed to assess the predictive value for advanced proximal neoplasms (cancer, adenoma = 10 mm, or villous component >20 percent, or severe dysplasia) of the characteristics of distal polyps.METHODS: The study was conducted among patients, aged 55 to 64 years, referred for colonoscopy in the Italian trial of sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer. Patients reporting a history of colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, recent colorectal endoscopy, or two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer were excluded. We compared the prevalence of advanced proximal neoplasia in patients with low-risk (1–2 tubular adenomas, <10 mm, with low-grade dysplasia, or hyperplastic polyp) and in those with high-risk (size, =10 mm, or =3 adenomas, or villous component >20 percent, or severe dysplasia) polyps in the distal colon.RESULTS: Of 426 patients with polyps > 5 mm, 29 (6.9 percent) were detected with an advanced proximal neoplasm (including 4 colorectal cancers). The prevalence of proximal advanced neoplasia was 9.4 percent among patients with high-risk distal polyps and 2.5 percent among those with low-risk lesions (adjusted odds ratio, 3.19; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.06–9.59). Approximately 40 people with low-risk distal polyps 6 to 9 mm should undergo colonoscopy to detect one proximal advanced neoplasm; the corresponding number for patients with high-risk distal polyps is 10.CONCLUSIONS: The 2.5 percent prevalence of proximal advanced neoplasms among people with low-risk 6-mm to 9-mm distal polyps is similar to the prevalence observed among people without distal polyps. Restricting colonoscopy referral to patients with high-risk distal polyps might represent a cost-effective strategy in a screening context.The SCORE trial was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC: 1995-1997) and by the Italian National Research Council (CNR - grant n. 95.00539.PF39; n.96.00736.PF39). The Istituto Oncologico Romagnolo (IOR), the Fondo E Tempia, the University of Milano and the Local Heath Unit ASL1 - Torino supported the implementation of the study in Rimini, Biella, Milano and Torino respectively.SOFAR s.p.a. provided the enemas for the bowel preparation.A report on the preliminary results of this study has been presented at the Digestive Disease Week, Orlando, Florida, May 1999, ASGE poster session.     

Computed tomography colonography in routine clinical practice

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experience of a radiology unit in using open access computed tomography (CT) colonography instead of double-contrast barium enema in patients who refused or had an incomplete first-attempt colonoscopy. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent CT colonography from December 1998 to August 2001 were recalled and evaluated. Patients in whom CT colonography showed intraluminal growths were sent for colonoscopy, performed using deep sedation if the first attempt failed. RESULTS: A total of 463 consecutive CT colonography examinations were performed: 304 patients were re-traceable and were evaluated. In 85 cases CT colonography reported the presence of intraluminal growth. Colonoscopy confirmed the presence of 74 of the 94 polyps, and of 43 of the 48 cancers found at CT colonography. Colonoscopy also diagnosed an additional two cancers in two patients with CT colonography findings of inflammatory changes, and an additional 26 polyps in 16 patients. On a per-lesion basis, the positive predictive value of CT colonography was 73%, 80% and 87% for polyps /= 10 mm, respectively, and was 90% for cancer. On a per-patient basis, the positive predictive value was 60%, 72% and 89% for lesions /= 10 mm, respectively, and was 93% for cancer. CONCLUSION: CT colonography on an open access basis can be confidently used as a routine test instead of double-contrast barium enema when total colonoscopy cannot be performed.     

Update on gastrointestinal imaging

The current status of three gastrointestinal imaging techniques-positron emission tomography (PET) with 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), computed tomographic (CT) colonography, and magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC)--are reviewed here. FDG-PET should not be used as an initial means to identify patients with primary colorectal malignancy; for the detection of colorectal carcinoma metastases and recurrence, contrast-enhanced CT should be used to monitor patients, with the use of PET reserved for equivocal cases. CT colonography is comparable to colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps > or = 1 cm, and its advantages include its capability of detecting extracolonic abnormalities. MRC is a relatively new application of MR imaging, with utility in multiple clinical settings, including patients with suspected obstructive disease, choledochal cysts, primary sclerosing cholangitis or AIDS cholangiopathy, biliary-enteric anastomoses, and patients with failed or inadequate endoscopic retrograde cholangiograms.     

Virtual CT colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: a prospective study

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Diagnosis of colorectal diseases might be a challenge. This prospective study aimed to evaluate virtual CT colonoscopy (CT colonography) as a new diagnostic modality in colorectal diseases. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-two patients (22 males and 10 females, mean age 47 years) with different colorectal complaints were investigated by CT colonography. Scanning parameters were collimation of 5mm, table speed of 6.25mm/s and pitch of 1.25. All images were evaluated in axial slices, reformatted images with endoluminal and extraluminal views. All patients were re-examined by the conventional colonoscope. The CT colonography and the colonoscopy findings were correlated. RESULTS: CT colonography suspected colorectal malignancy in 14 patients, diagnosed colorectal polyps in 4 (out of 6), suspected inflammatory bowel diseases in 5 (out of 6), showed colonic diverticulae in 3 (out of 4), and found no abnormality in 2 patients. CT colonography displayed the proximal colon above the obstructing lesion in extraluminal views, fungating mass in endoluminal view and accurately localized the lesion. In inflammatory bowel diseases, segmental (in 4 patients) or skipped (one patient) wall thickening, loss of colonic haustration (3 patients) and pseudopolyps (one patient) were detected. Superficial ulcers were missed. Endoluminal images displayed the orifices of the diverticulae in 3 patients. The CT colonography sensitivity was 86.7% and its specificity was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The high resolution and multiple image display of CT colonography allow detection of many colorectal lesions. CT colonography is also a noninvasive imaging modality that is particularly valuable in poor risk patients and for colorectal examination proximal to an obstructing lesion.     

Meta-analysis comparing CT colonography, air contrast barium enema, and colonoscopy

Introduction

Published studies have reported a wide range of sensitivities and specificities for computed tomographic (CT) colonography for polyp detection, generating controversy regarding its diagnostic accuracy.

Methods

A meta-analysis of published studies comparing the accuracies of CT colonography and colonoscopy for polyp detection was performed. The pooled per-patient sensitivities and specificities were calculated at various thresholds for polyp size. Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were also constructed.

Results

Thirty studies were included in the meta-analysis of CT colonography. The pooled per-patient sensitivity of CT colonography was higher for polyps greater than 10 mm (0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.88) compared with polyps 6 to 10 mm (0.63, 95% CI, 0.52-0.75) and polyps 0 to 5 mm (0.56, 95% CI, 0.42-0.70). Similarly, the exact area under the sROC curve (area ± standard error) was higher using a threshold greater than 10 mm (0.898 ± 0.063) compared with thresholds of greater than 5 mm and any size (0.884 ± 0.033 and 0.822 ± 0.059, respectively). There were no significant differences in the diagnostic characteristics of 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional CT colonography. At a threshold greater than 5 mm, the exact area under the sROC curve was significantly higher for endoscopic colonoscopy compared with CT colonography (0.998 ± 0.006 vs 0.884 ± 0.033, P < .005).

Conclusions

CT colonography has a reasonable sensitivity and specificity for detecting large polyps but was less accurate than endoscopic colonoscopy for smaller polyps. Thus, CT colonography may not be a reasonable alternative in situations in which a small polyp may be clinically relevant.     

Virtual colonoscopy

Computed axial colonography, usually called virtual colonoscopy, is a new diagnostic method potentially useful for investigating polyps and tumors of the colon and rectum. It uses spiral axial tomography data to build up images similar to those given by conventional colonoscopy, offering advantages in that it causes no adverse reactions, and is accepted well by patients, who do not need to be sedated. Reports to date show its sensitivity and specificity vary in identifying polyps in the colon, and there are still many problems with the new method, such as its cost, its learning curve, the identification of flat lesions, and detection of extracolonic abnormalities. There is a pressing need to establish the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of virtual colonoscopy as a screening method for colorectal tumors, and for post-polypectomy surveillance.     

Association between colonic diverticulosis and prevalence of colorectal polyps

Introduction

Diverticulosis and colorectal polyps increase in frequency as the population ages. Proposed common mechanisms for both include lack of dietary fiber, increased saturated fats, and slow colonic transit time. The association of diverticulosis and colorectal polyps has been previously reported with conflicting results. Despite sharing common epidemiologic predisposing factors, the association between diverticulosis and colon polyps remains unclear and needs better clarification.

Aim

The primary aim of our study is to evaluate if there is any association between diverticular disease and colorectal polyps.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective cohort study. All consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy between January 2009 and December 2011 were included, except those with history of inflammatory bowel disease, polyposis syndrome, and poor bowel preparation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to analyze the association between colon polyps and diverticulosis. Hyperplastic polyps were excluded from the statistical analysis, and only pre-cancerous adenomas were included.

Results

A total of 2,223 patients met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of colorectal polyps in patients with diverticulosis was significantly higher than those without diverticulosis (odds ratio (OR) 1.54; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.27–1.80, p?=?0.001). This association was found significant for all locations of polyps and all histological subtypes. There was also a statistically significant association between age, presence of diverticulosis, and colorectal polyps (OR 1.03; 95 % CI 1.02–1.04). The incidence of colorectal polyps increases as age advances in patients with diverticulosis, with the highest association in patients >70 years of age (OR 3.55; 95 % CI 2.50–5.04). There was no significant association between indication for colonoscopy and presence of colorectal polyps in patients with diverticulosis (OR 0.98; 95 % CI 0.95–1.01). The incidence of diverticulitis was low (<1 %), and there was no association between diverticulitis and colon polyps.

Conclusion

There is a significant association between diverticulosis and synchronous pre-cancerous colorectal polyps (adenomas). Patients with diverticulosis have a higher risk of colorectal polyps as compared to those without. This observation needs further validation by a large prospective cohort study.