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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting

BACKGROUND & AIMS: No multicenter study has been reported evaluating the performance and interobserver variability of computerized tomographic colonography. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of computerized tomographic colonography for detecting clinically important colorectal neoplasia (polyps >or=10 mm in diameter) in a multi-institutional study. METHODS: A retrospective study was developed from 341 patients who had computerized tomographic colonography and colonoscopy among 8 medical centers. Colonoscopy and pathology reports provided the standard. A random sample of 117 patients, stratified by criterion standard, was requested. Ninety-three patients were included (47% with polyps >or=10 mm; mean age, 62 years; 56% men; 84% white; 40% reported colorectal symptoms; 74% at increased risk for colorectal cancer). Eighteen radiologists blinded to the criterion standard interpreted computerized tomography colonography examinations, each using 2 of 3 different software display platforms. RESULTS: The average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for identifying patients with at least 1 lesion >or=10 mm was 0.80 (95% lower confidence bound, 0.74). The average sensitivity and specificity were 75% (95% lower confidence bound, 68%) and 73% (95% lower confidence bound, 66%), respectively. Per-polyp sensitivity was 75%. A trend was observed for better performance with more observer experience. There was no difference in performance across software display platforms. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized tomographic colonography performance compared favorably with reported performance of fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema. A prospective study evaluating the performance of computerized tomography colonography in a screening population is indicated.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

USEFULNESS OF MULTI DETECTOR ROW COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY FOR DETECTION OF FLAT AND DEPRESSED COLORECTAL CANCER

Background: Recently, the clinical usefulness of colorectal cancer screening by CT colonography has been reported in Europe and the USA. However, in Japan, the diagnosis of flat or depressed colorectal cancer lesions has been emphasized, and the question of whether CT colonography facilitates visualization of these lesions remains to be answered. In the present study, we compared the visualization of flat and depressed colorectal cancer lesions by CT colonography with that of protruding lesions. Methods: We investigated 33 Dukes A colorectal cancer lesions that had been examined by 3D‐CT, colonoscopy, and barium enema prior to surgery. In all patients, CT colonography was performed immediately after colonoscopy. Volume rendering was used for 3‐D rearrangement, and imaging findings were examined with respect to morphology, tumor diameter, and tumor height. Results: All (14/14) of the protruding‐type lesions were visualized by CT colonography, whereas 78.9% (15/19) of the flat and depressed‐type lesions were visualized. There was no significant difference in tumor diameter between protruding‐type lesions and flat and depressed‐type lesions. With respect to tumor height, 100% of the lesions measuring 2 mm or more in height were visualized, whereas only 42.9% of those measuring less than 2 mm in height were visualized; the difference was significant (P < 0.001). Conclusions: These results suggest that the visualization capacity of CT colonography is associated with tumor height, but not with tumor diameter. Currently, lesions measuring 2 mm or more in height can be visualized reliably by CT colonography.     

Considering double contrast barium enema and its demise: a case for systematic videorecording of colonoscopy

Double contrast barium enema (DCBE) continues its decline. One area where DCBE and CT colonography surpass colonoscopy is in documentation. Colonoscopy could improve documentation by systematic videorecording of examinations (or at least of the withdrawal portions). Investigation of the impact of systematic videorecording of colonoscopy on quality, cost, and medical-legal risk is warranted.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The role of colonoscopy in screening persons with family history of colorectal cancer

Abstract First-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients are at increased risk for developing colorectal neoplasms. In order to assess the potentiality of colonoscopy screening in this high-risk population, 213 asymptomatic family members (age range 30-69 years, mean 42.8 years) of those patients with colorectal cancer received colonoscopic examination at Chang-Gung Memorial Hospital from April 1992 to May 1994. Twenty-eight persons with 42 lesions (polyps or cancer) were identified, including 28 adenomas, nine hyperplastic polyps and five adenocarcinomas. The positive detection rate was 9.9% for adenoma and 2.3% for cancer. Colorectal neoplasms afflicted males more frequently than females (16.7 vs 5.7%, P < 0.05) and occurred less frequently in those < 40 years of age (5.5 vs 17.2%, P < 0.05). Forty-two per cent of the detected neoplastic lesions were beyond the reach of 60 cm flexible sigmoidoscopy and 36% of adenomas were < 0.5 cm in size and would be missed if patients were screened by air contrast barium enema. Cost analysis revealed that the charges of both screening colonoscopy and screening flexible sigmoidoscopy/air contrast barium enema were approximate. Colonoscopy also has a high acceptability and safety. It appears appropriate to use colonoscopy, rather than flexible sigmoidoscopy or air contrast barium enema, as an initial screening procedure for persons with a family history of colorectal cancer, especially those > 40 years of age.     

Role of virtual computed tomographic colonography in patients with colorectal cancers and obstructing colorectal lesions

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the ability of computed tomographic colonography to diagnose colorectal masses, stage colorectal cancers, image the proximal colon in obstructing colorectal lesions, and evaluate the anastomoses in patients with previous colorectal surgery. METHODS: We prospectively performed computed tomographic colonography examinations in 34 patients (20 males; mean age, 64.2; range, 19–91 years): 20 patients had colorectal masses (defined at endoscopy as intraluminal masses 2 cm or larger), 7 patients had benign obstructing colorectal strictures, and 7 patients had a prior colorectal resection. Final tumor staging was available in all 16 patients who had colorectal cancers and 15 patients were referred after incomplete colonoscopy. The ability of computed tomographic colonography to stage colorectal cancers, identify synchronous lesions in patients with colorectal masses, and image the proximal colon in patients with obstructing colorectal lesions was assessed. RESULTS: Computed tomographic colonography identified all colorectal masses, but overcalled two masses in patients who were either poorly distended or poorly prepared. Computed tomographic colonography correctly staged 13 of 16 colorectal cancers (81 percent) and detected 16 of 17 (93 percent) synchronous polyps. Computed tomographic colonography overstaged two Dukes Stage A cancers and understaged one Dukes Stage C cancer. A total of 97 percent (87/90) of all colonic segments were adequately visualized at computed tomographic colonography in patients with obstructing colorectal lesions compared with 60 percent (26/42) of segments at barium enema (P<0.01). Colonic anastomoses were visualized in all nine patients, but in one patient, computed tomographic colonography could not distinguish between local tumor recurrence and surgical changes. CONCLUSION: Computed tomographic colonography can accurately identify all colorectal masses but may overcall stool as masses in poorly distended or poorly prepared colons. Computed tomographic colonography has an overall staging accuracy of 81 percent for colorectal cancer and is superior to barium enema in visualizing colonic segments proximal to obstructing colorectal lesions.Read at The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' 100th Anniversary and Tripartite Meeting, Washington D.C., May 1 to 6, 1999.     

Performance of multidetector computed tomography colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This was a prospective blinded study to compare computed tomography (CT) colonography, performed with multidetector arrays CT scan (MDCT), with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: Fifty patients were examined by MDCT after standard bowel preparation and rectal air insufflation in the supine and prone positions. Data sets were examined by one radiologist and one gastroenterologist blinded to the patient's history and colonoscopy results. Patients subsequently underwent colonoscopy on the same day, which served as the gold standard. RESULTS: Nine of 11 lesions >10 mm (82%), 5/15 lesions of 6-9 mm (33%), and 1/42 polyps <5 mm (3%) were detected by MDCT colonography. One false positive result for a structure larger than 10 mm was described. Nineteen of 21 patients who had no lesions during conventional colonoscopy were considered free of lesions by MDCT colonography, yielding a per patient specificity of 90%. CONCLUSION: MDCT colonography provides good data quality and has good sensitivity and specificity for the detection of colonic lesions of 10 mm or more.     

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.     

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.     

Sensitivity of diagnostic examinations for colorectal polyps

The removal of adenomatous polyps of the large bowel reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). Faecal occult blood testing only reveals 20.40% of polyps. The flexible rectosigmoidoscope explores less than half of the large bowel. Its use should always be coupled with faecal occult blood testing which, if positive, requires a total colonoscopy. The sensitivity of double-contrast barium enema for the search of polyps is 35%. Colonoscopy does not reach the caecum in about 10% of cases. It misses 15-20% of polyps with diameter <10 mm and about 6% of polyps with diameter >10 mm. Virtual colonoscopy has substantially the same sensitivity as optical colonoscopy for polyps > or =7 mm in diameter.