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.     

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.     

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.     

Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In isolation, computer-aided detection (CAD) for computed tomographic (CT) colonography is as effective as optical colonoscopy for detection of significant adenomas. However, the unavoidable interaction between CAD and the reader has not been addressed. METHODS: Ten readers trained in CT but without special expertise in colonography interpreted CT colonography images of 107 patients (60 with 142 polyps), first without CAD and then with CAD after temporal separation of 2 months. Per-patient and per-polyp detection were determined by comparing responses with known patient status. RESULTS: With CAD, 41 (68%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-80%) of the 60 patients with polyps were identified more frequently by readers. Per-patient sensitivity increased significantly in 70% of readers, while specificity dropped significantly in only one. Polyp detection increased significantly with CAD; on average, 12 more polyps were detected by each reader (9.1%, 95% CI, 5.2%-12.8%). Small- (< or =5 mm) and medium-sized (6-9 mm) polyps were significantly more likely to be detected when prompted correctly by CAD. However, overall performance was relatively poor; even with CAD, on average readers detected only 10 polyps (51.0%) > or =10 mm and 24 (38.2%) > or =6 mm. Interpretation time was shortened significantly with CAD: by 1.9 minutes (95% CI, 1.4-2.4 minutes) for patients with polyps and by 2.9 minutes (95% CI, 2.5-3.3 minutes) for patients without. Overall, 9 readers (90%) benefited significantly from CAD, either by increased sensitivity and/or by reduced interpretation time. CONCLUSIONS: CAD for CT colonography significantly increases per-patient and per-polyp detection and significantly reduces interpretation times but cannot substitute for adequate training.     

Management of Small Polyps Detected by Screening CT Colonography: Patient and Physician Preferences

Background

Management of small polyps found on computed tomography (CT) colonography is controversial and critical to both cancer outcomes and cost. Patient and physician behavior are influenced by personal beliefs and prior experience. Thus, we aimed to understand patient and physician preferences after finding polyps on CT colonography.

Methods

Patients were given a validated handout and survey asking for their preference for evaluation of a “pea-sized” polyp found on CT colonography. By using an Internet survey, physicians were asked how they would manage a 5-mm, 8-mm, or 12-mm polyp, or three 5-mm polyps found by CT colonography in a hypothetical 52-year-old patient of average colorectal cancer risk. Survey reliability was assessed using Cronbach's coefficient alpha.

Results

Of the 305 patient respondents, 95% wanted to know if the polyp found on CT colonography was precancerous, 86% stated they would request endoscopic evaluation, and 85% wanted polypectomy. Of the 277 primary care physicians, 71% would refer a 5-mm sigmoid polyp for endoscopy, 86% would refer an 8-mm polyp, 97% would refer a 12-mm polyp, and 91% would refer three 5-mm polyps. Of the 461 gastroenterologists, 83% would refer a 5-mm sigmoid polyp for endoscopy, 96% would refer an 8-mm polyp, 97% would refer a 12-mm polyp, and 93% would refer three 5-mm polyps. Overall, 75% of physicians indicated the fear of missing a precancerous lesion would prompt referral for colonoscopy.

Conclusion

Both patients and physicians overwhelmingly preferred to follow up small polyps identified by CT colonography with endoscopy, suggesting that population-based CT colonography screening programs in which polyps are not removed might require significant patient and physician education before implementation.     

Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The sensitivity of computed tomographic (CT) virtual colonoscopy (CT colonography) for detecting polyps varies widely in recently reported large clinical trials. Our objective was to determine whether a computer program is as sensitive as optical colonoscopy for the detection of adenomatous colonic polyps on CT virtual colonoscopy. METHODS: The data set was a cohort of 1186 screening patients at 3 medical centers. All patients underwent same-day virtual and optical colonoscopy. Our enhanced gold standard combined segmental unblinded optical colonoscopy and retrospective identification of precise polyp locations. The data were randomized into separate training (n = 394) and test (n = 792) sets for analysis by a computer-aided polyp detection (CAD) program. RESULTS: For the test set, per-polyp and per-patient sensitivities for CAD were both 89.3% (25/28; 95% confidence interval, 71.8%-97.7%) for detecting retrospectively identifiable adenomatous polyps at least 1 cm in size. The false-positive rate was 2.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.0-2.2) false polyps per patient. Both carcinomas were detected by CAD at a false-positive rate of 0.7 per patient; only 1 of 2 was detected by optical colonoscopy before segmental unblinding. At both 8-mm and 10-mm adenoma size thresholds, the per-patient sensitivities of CAD were not significantly different from those of optical colonoscopy before segmental unblinding. CONCLUSIONS: The per-patient sensitivity of CT virtual colonoscopy CAD in an asymptomatic screening population is comparable to that of optical colonoscopy for adenomas > or = 8 mm and is generalizable to new CT virtual colonoscopy data.     

Findings on optical colonoscopy after positive CT colonography exam

BACKGROUND & AIMS:  The aim of this study is to evaluate the findings on optical colonoscopy (OC) after a positive CT colonography (CTC) exam and characterize the type of polyps seen on OC but not reported by CTC.
METHODS:  Over an 18-month period a total of 159 asymptomatic adults had polyps seen on computed tomography colonography examination and subsequently underwent planned therapeutic optical colonoscopy. The colonoscopists were aware of the findings on CT colonography prior to further evaluation of the colon. Characteristics of polyps and adenomas seen on subsequent optical colonoscopy but not seen or reported on CT colonography were examined.
RESULTS:  The adenoma miss rate for CT colonography overall was 18.9% (25/132) including 6.2% (4/65) for polyps >9 mm and 18.2% (8/44) for polyps 6–9 mm. Three of the adenomas >9 mm not seen on CTC were sessile, and two were found in patients with technically difficult CT colonography studies due to poor colonic distention. No adenomas with advanced pathology <6 mm were found on optical colonoscopy but not reported on CT colonography. False-positive CTC referral where no polyp was seen on colonoscopy was 5.0%.
CONCLUSIONS:  CT colonography has adenoma miss rates similar to miss rates historically found with optical colonoscopy, with most missed adenomas being <10 mm and sessile in shape.     

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.     

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.     

Prospective Study Comparing Multislice CT Colonography With Colonoscopy in the Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Polyps

PURPOSE: Multislice CT colonography is an alternative to colonoscopy. The purpose of this study was to compare multislice CT colonography with colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancers. METHODS: Between June 2000 and December 2001, 45 males and 35 females (median age, 68 (29–83) years) with symptoms of colorectal disease were studied prospectively. All patients underwent multislice CT colonography and colonoscopy, and the findings were compared. RESULTS: Colonoscopy was incomplete in 18 (22 percent) patients because of obstructing lesions or technical difficulty, and multislice CT colonography was unsuccessful in 4 (5 percent) because of fecal residue. Colonoscopy was normal in 26 patients and detected 29 colorectal cancers and 33 polyps in 35 patients, diverticulosis in 16 patients, and colitis in 3 patients. Multislice CT colonography identified 28 of 29 colorectal cancers with one false negative and one false positive (sensitivity, 97 percent; specificity, 98 percent; positive predictive value, 96 percent; negative predictive value, 98 percent). Multislice CT colonography identified all 12 polyps measuring 10 mm in diameter (sensitivity, 100 percent), 5 of 6 measuring 6 to 9 mm in diameter (sensitivity, 83 percent), 8 of 15 polyps 5 mm (sensitivity, 53 percent), and false-positive for 8 polyps. The overall sensitivity was 74 percent and specificity 96 percent. The positive predictive value for polyps was 88 percent, and the negative predictive value was 90 percent. Multislice CT colonography also detected 5 of 16 patients with diverticulosis (sensitivity, 31 percent; specificity, 98 percent) and colitis in 2 of 3 patients (sensitivity, 67 percent; specificity, 100 percent). In ten (13 percent) patients, extracolonic findings on multislice CT colonography altered management and included five patients with colorectal liver metastases. In 15 (19 percent) patients, there were incidental findings that did not demand further investigation. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study indicate that the efficacy of multislice CT colonography in the detection of colorectal cancers and polyps 6 mm is similar to colonoscopy. Multislice CT colonography allows clinical staging of colorectal cancers, outlines the whole length of the colon in obstructing carcinoma when colonoscopy fails, and can identify extracolonic causes of abdominal symptoms.     

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.     

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.     

Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We prospectively compared the performance of low-dose multidetector computed tomographic colonography (CTC) without cathartic preparation with that of colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. METHODS: A total of 203 patients underwent low-dose CTC without cathartic preparation followed by colonoscopy. Before CTC, fecal tagging was achieved by adding diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium to regular meals. No subtraction of tagged feces was performed. Colonoscopy was performed 3-7 days after CTC. Three readers interpreted the CTC examinations separately and independently using a primary 2-dimensional approach using multiplanar reconstructions and 3-dimensional images for further characterization. Colonoscopy with segmental unblinding was used as reference standard. The sensitivity of CTC was calculated both on a per-polyp and a per-patient basis. For the latter, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were also calculated. RESULTS: CTC had an average sensitivity of 95.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.1%-99%) for the identification of colorectal polyps > or =8 mm. With regard to per-patient analysis, CTC yielded an average sensitivity of 89.9% (95% CI, 86%-93.7%), an average specificity of 92.2% (95% CI, 89.5%-94.9%), an average positive predictive value of 88% (95% CI, 83.3%-91.5%), and an average negative predictive value of 93.5% (95% CI, 90.9%-96%). Interobserver agreement was high on a per-polyp basis (kappa statistic range, .61-.74) and high to excellent on a per-patient basis (kappa statistic range, .79-.91). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose multidetector CTC without cathartic preparation compares favorably with colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.     

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.     

Two-Year Incidence of Colon Adenomas Developing after Tandem Colonoscopy

Objective: We attempted to determine an accurate frequency of new polyp growth in a cohort of veteran male patients who were initially cleared of polyps by tandem colonoscopy. Methods: Followup colonoscopy was performed 2 yr after tandem colonoscopy. A polyp was categorized as "new" if it was not located in a segment of the colon or rectum that had harbored a neoplastic polyp of the same histology at tandem colonoscopy, in contradistinction to lesions designated as "same-segment" polyps. Results: Fifty-eight of 90 patients who had tandem colonoscopy as a part of a previous study were available for follow-up colonoscopy for 2 yr. Ninety-one percent had a history of benign neoplastic polyps or cancer. Neoplastic polyps were documented in 52% (95% CI, 45–74%) of patients at followup, and 38% (95% CI, 26–52%) were found to have a total of 31 "new" lesions. All new lesions were tubular adenomas. The largest number of new polyps in an individual patient was four, and the largest new lesion was 20 mm in size with a flat, linear configuration. Most (25/31) new polyps were <5 mm, and the number of neoplastic polyps per patient at follow-up was less than at tandem colonoscopy. Conclusions: Approximately one-half of older, male patients with a history of neoplastic polyps will demonstrate neoplastic polyps at 2 yr. In at least one-third of patients, these appear to be new lesions. In some patients, de novo neoplastic polyps can grow to ≥1 cm within 2 yr.     

MR-colonography in hospitalized patients: feasibility and sensitivity

INTRODUCTION: Besides conventional colonoscopy, CT and MR colonography offer alternate virtual imaging modalities of the colon. The sensitivity of CT colonography, which is associated with radiation exposure, has been published in prior, large studies. Regarding MR colonography, in particular dark lumen MR colonography with the rectal administration of a water enema as a contrast agent, only limited published data exist. The goal of this study was to compare MR colonography with conventional colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps. In addition the feasibility and image quality in unselected hospitalised patients were assessed. PATIENTS/METHODS: Included were 103 hospitalised patients who had to undergo colonoscopy for various indications. Immediately prior to conventional colonoscopy, MR colonography with rectal water enema and additional intravenous administration of contrast material was performed. Detection rates for polyps and adenomas were documented with both imaging modalities. Image quality and completion rates (practicability) and other (incidental) findings were also recorded. RESULTS: In 15 of 103 patients the MR examination could not be done or was only partially completed. The detection rate of MR colonography for polyps (adenomas) was 2% (4%) for polyps (adenomas) up to 5 mm in diameter, 38% (56%) for polyps (adenomas) 6-10 mm in diameter and 89% (89%) for polyps (adenomas) up to 11 mm in diameter. One flat carcinoma seen with conventional coloscopy was missed on MR colonography. CONCLUSIONS: MR colonography offers the possibility of imaging the colon without exposure to radiation. Polyps and adenomas are detected, similar to the detection rate of CT colonography, with adequate sensitivity only if they are larger than 10 mm in diameter. Therefore this imaging technique is not (yet) suitable as a screening test. Additional limitations are the necessary cooperation of the patient which can reduce the practicability and image quality in selected patients. Further studies like the just started German multicentre trial are needed to assess the position of MR colonography.     

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.     

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.     

Small polyps found during fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy in asymptomatic patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of small polyps in the rectosigmoid in an asymptomatic group and the likelihood of finding synchronous neoplastic polyps proximally at colonoscopy. DESIGN: Asymptomatic patients with polyps 9 mm or less found at screening fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy were referred for colonoscopy, at which time all polyps were removed. SETTING: Screening fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy unit. PATIENTS: Referral from Executive Health Wellness Clinic and large multispeciality clinic. RESULTS: From 3923 sigmoidoscopic examinations, 258 asymptomatic subjects (7%) were identified who had polyps 9 mm or smaller. One hundred and eighty-nine patients (73%) had colonoscopy. In 179 patients, the target lesion noted at sigmoidoscopy was identified at colonoscopy. Based on histology of the target lesion, patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 (72 patients) had only hyperplastic polyps; Group 2 (69 patients) had at least one neoplastic polyp; and Group 3 (31 patients) had polyps with normal histology. Seven patients were not classified. Neoplastic polyps were found proximally in 21 patients in Group 1 (29%; 95% CI, 19 to 39), 23 patients in Group 2 (33%; 95% CI, 22 to 44), and 4 patients in Group 3 (13%; 95% CI, 4 to 30). There was no difference in mean age between groups. The results were similar when only polyps 5 mm or smaller were analyzed. CONCLUSION: Because small polyps of any histologic type in the rectosigmoid indicate a high risk for having neoplastic polyps proximally, the guidelines of both the American College of Physicians and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy may need to be revised. Colonoscopy seems justified in any patient in whom a small polyp is discovered at sigmoidoscopy.     

An australian audit of vaccination status in children and adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease

Background

Pre-existing polyps, especially large polyps, are known to be the major source for colorectal cancer, but there is limited available information about factors that are associated with polyp size and polyp growth. We aim to determine factors associated with polyp size in different age groups.

Methods

Colonoscopy data were prospectively collected from 67 adult gastrointestinal practice sites in the United States between 2002 and 2007 using a computer-generated endoscopic report form. Data were transmitted to and stored in a central data repository, where all asymptomatic white (n = 78352) and black (n = 4289) patients who had a polyp finding on screening colonoscopy were identified. Univariate and multivariate analysis of age, gender, performance site, race, polyp location, number of polyps, and family history as risk factors associated with the size of the largest polyp detected at colonoscopy.

Results

In both genders, size of the largest polyp increased progressively with age in all age groups (P < .0001). In subjects ≥ 80 years the relative risk was 1.55 (95% CI, 1.35-1.79) compared to subjects in the youngest age group. With the exception of family history, all study variables were significantly associated with polyp size (P < .0001), with multiple polyps (≥ 2 versus 1) having the strongest risk: 3.41 (95% CI, 3.29-3.54).

Conclusions

In both genders there is a significant increase in polyp size detected during screening colonoscopy with increasing age. Important additional risk factors associated with increasing polyp size are gender, race, polyp location, and number of polyps, with polyp multiplicity being the strongest risk factor. Previous family history of bowel cancer was not a risk factor.