Magnetic resonance colonography versus colonoscopy as a diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

AIMS: Magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) is emerging as a potential complementary investigation for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and also for benign pathology such as diverticular disease. A meta-analysis reporting the use of MRC is yet to be performed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MRC compared with the gold-standard investigation, conventional colonoscopy (CC). METHODS: A literature search was carried out to identify studies containing comparative data between MRC findings and CC findings. Quantitative meta-analysis for diagnostic tests was performed, which included the calculation of independent sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic odds ratios, the construction of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves, pooled analysis and sensitivity analysis. The study heterogeneity was evaluated by the Q-test using a random-effect model to accommodate the cluster of outcomes between individual studies. RESULTS: In all, 8 comparative studies were identified, involving 563 patients. The calculated pooled sensitivity for all lesions was 75% (95% CI: 47% to 91%), the specificity was 96% (95% CI: 86% to 98%) and the area under the ROC curve was 90% (weighted). On sensitivity analysis, MRC had a better diagnostic accuracy for CRC than for polyps, with a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI: 97% to 91%), a specificity of 98% (95% CI: 66% to 99%) and an area under the ROC curve of 92%. There was no significant heterogeneity between the studies with regard to the diagnostic accuracy of MRC for CRC. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that MRC is an imaging technique with high discrimination for cases presenting with colorectal cancer. The exact diagnostic role of MRC needs to be clarified (e.g. suitable for an elderly person with suspected CRC). Further evaluation is necessary to refine its applicability and diagnostic accuracy in comparison with other imaging methods such as computed tomography colonography.     

Intravenous, contrast-enhanced MR colonography using air as endoluminal contrast agent: impact on colorectal polyp detection

Purpose

To compare diagnostic accuracy and patient tolerance of MR colonography with intravenous contrast and luminal air (MRC) to conventional colonoscopy (CC).

Materials and methods

IRB approval and written informed consent were obtained. Forty-six patients, both screening and symptomatic, underwent MRC followed by CC. The MRC technique employed 3D T1W spoiled gradient echo sequences performed after the administration of gadopenetate dimeglumine, with parallel imaging. The diagnostic accuracy and tolerance of patients for MRC was compared to CC.

Results

Twenty-four polyps were detected in eighteen patients with CC (5 polyps ≥10 mm, 4 polyps 6–9 mm, 15 polyps ≤5 mm). MRC was 66.7% (12/18) sensitive and 96.4% (27/28) specific for polyp detection on a per-patient basis. When analyzed by polyp size, sensitivity and specificity of MRC was 100% (5/5) and 100% (19/19), respectively, for lesions greater than 10 mm, 100% (4/4) and 100% (20/20) for lesions 6–9 mm, and sensitivity of 20% (3/15) lesions less than 5 mm. The sensitivity and specificity of MRC for detecting significant lesions (>6 mm) was 100% (9/9) and 100% (15/15), respectively. Regarding tolerance of the exams, there were no significant differences between MRC and CC. Thirty-five percent (n = 16) of patients preferred MRC as a future screening test compared to 33% (n = 15) for CC.

Conclusion

MRC using air as an intraluminal contrast agent is a feasible and well-tolerated technique for detecting colonic polyps ≥6 mm in size. Further studies are warranted.     

PET/CT colonography in patients with colorectal polyps: a feasibility study

PURPOSE: To examine: (1) the feasibility of PET/CT colonography (PET/CTc) in patients with colorectal polyps; (2) the impact of metabolic information on CTc interpretation and, conversely, the impact of morphological information on PET characterisation of focal colorectal uptake. METHODS: Ten patients with colorectal polyps underwent PET/CTc, followed within 3 h by therapeutic conventional colonoscopy (CC). A radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician analysed the PET/CTc images. The agreement of morphological and metabolic information in the colon and rectum was evaluated. The sensitivity and specificity of PET, CT and PET/CT were calculated for colorectal polyps. RESULTS: Seventeen polypoid lesions were identified at CC: six< or =5 mm, six between 6 and 9 mm, and five > or =10 mm (four hyperplastic polyps, 11 tubular adenomas, one adenocarcinoma and one submucosal lipoma). A total of 20 scans (supine and prone) were performed in the ten patients: the agreement of morphological and metabolic information was excellent in 17 scans, good in two and moderate in one. PET/CTc showed a sensitivity of 91% for lesions > or =6 mm and a specificity of 100%. The metabolic information did not disclose any further polyps missed on CTc. The morphological information permitted correct classification of all eight instances of focal radiotracer uptake. CONCLUSION: PET/CTc is a feasible study. Adding a colonographic protocol to PET/CT images seems to allow correct characterisation of all cases of colorectal focal radiotracer uptake. The metabolic information does not seem to increase the accuracy of CTc.     

Detectability of small and flat polyps in MDCT colonography using 2D and 3D imaging tools: results from a phantom study

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this phantom study was to determine the performance of MDCT colonography for the detection of small polyps under ideal imaging conditions and to determine the added value of 3D imaging when used as an adjunct to 2D imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six polypoid and 39 flat polyps (44 lesions, 2-5 mm; 31 lesions, 6-8 mm) were placed in three explanted segments of a thoroughly cleaned porcine colon (overall length, 4.5 m) that was distended with air and submerged in a water phantom. MDCT data sets with 4 x 1 mm collimation and 6-mm table feed were reconstructed every 0.7 mm with 1.25-mm effective slice width. The data were reviewed by three radiologists using 2D images in all three projections and with 3D volume-rendered images available as an adjunct to the 2D images. RESULTS: Additional 3D as a problem-solving tool significantly increased the overall sensitivity (96% vs 90%), decreased the total number of false-positive calls (n = 9 vs n = 5), and increased the diagnostic confidence level (p < 0.03) compared with 2D images alone. Small polyps less than or equal to 5 mm (89% vs 95%, p = 0.004) and flat polyps (82% vs 94%, p = 0.001) especially benefited from 3D. Sensitivity was generally higher for polypoid than for flat polyps (99% vs 94%, p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Under phantom conditions, simulating an ideal clinical setup, MDCT colonography is not limited by spatial resolution and detects polyps less than or equal to 5 mm in size with high sensitivity and specificity. Additional 3D image tools improve diagnostic accuracy and reviewer confidence, especially for the detection of flat and small polyps.     

Diagnostic performance of computed tomography colonography and colonoscopy: a prospective and validated analysis of 231 paired examinations

Background: Detection of colorectal tumors with computed tomography colonography (CTC) is an alternative to conventional colonoscopy (CC), and clarification of the diagnostic performance is essential for cost-effective use of both technologies.

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of CTC compared with CC.

Material and Methods: 231 consecutive CTCs were performed prior to same-day scheduled CC. The radiologist and endoscopists were blinded to each other's findings. Patients underwent a polyethylene glycol bowel preparation, and were scanned in prone and supine positions using a single-detector helical CT scanner and commercially available software for image analysis. Findings were validated (matched) in an unblinded comparison with video-recordings of the CCs and re-CCs in cases of doubt.

Results: For patients with polyps ≥5 mm and ≥10 mm, the sensitivity was 69% (95% CI 58-80%) and 81% (68-94%), and the specificity was 91% (84-98%) and 98% (93-100%), respectively. For detection of polyps ≥5 mm and ≥10 mm, the sensitivity was 66% (57-75%) and 77% (65-89%). A flat, elevated low-grade carcinoma was missed by CTC. One cancer relapse was missed by CC, and a cecal cancer was missed by an incomplete CC and follow-up double-contrast barium enema.

Conclusion: CC was superior to CTC and should remain first choice for the diagnosis of colorectal polyps. However, for diagnosis of lesions ≥10 mm, CTC and CC should be considered as complementary methods.     

Strengths and weaknesses of dark-lumen MR colonography: clinical relevance of polyps smaller than 5 mm in diameter at the moment of their detection

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical relevance of dark-lumen MR colonography (MRC) for the detection of colorectal lesions using conventional colonoscopy (CC) and histopathologic examinations as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 72 patients underwent MRC and CC. MRC was performed using a contrast-enhanced high spatial resolution T1 weighted 3D volumetric interpolated breathhold examination (VIBE)-sequence. All removed colorectal lesions were evaluated by an experienced pathologist. RESULTS: CC confirmed 65 polyps less than 5 mm in diameter. Non of those lesions could be detected using MRC. Just two (4%) of the 49 removed lesions smaller than 5 mm showed signs of dysplasia. Additionally, CC confirmed 25 polyps between 6-15 mm in diameter (MRC 22). All those 25 lesions were removed in CC. Only four (16%) of those polyps showed signs of dysplasia and malignancy (11, 13, 13 and 15 mm). CONCLUSION: Dark-lumen MRC failed to detect all polyps smaller than 5 mm in diameter which are generally not clinically relevant at the moment of their detection and thus can be kept under surveillance. However, MRC as a non-invasive imaging modality is a promising alternative to CC in the detection of clinically relevant polyps larger than 5 mm in diameter.     

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

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

MR colonography with fecal tagging: barium vs. barium ferumoxsil

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Both magnetic resonance (MR) and computed tomographic (CT) colonography are useful for colon examination. With sensitivities close to those for conventional colonoscopy (CC) for polyps, colonography has been proposed as an alternative to diagnostic CC. MR colonography (MRC) with fecal tagging may be a method of gaining further patient acceptance and widespread use, but the method has to be optimized. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of a new contrast agent mixture and to validate a new method for evaluating the tagging efficiency of contrast agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients referred to CC underwent dark lumen MRC prior to the colonoscopy. Two groups of patients received two different oral contrast agents (barium sulfate and barium sulfate/ferumoxsil) as a laxative-free fecal tagging prior to the MRC. After MRC, the contrast agent was rated qualitatively (with the standard method using contrast-to-wall ratio) and subjectively (using a visual analog scale [VAS]) by three different blinded observers. RESULTS: Evaluated both qualitatively and subjectively, the tagging efficiency of barium sulfate/ferumoxsil was significantly better (P < .05) than barium sulfate alone. The VAS method for evaluating the tagging efficiency of contrast agents showed a high correlation (observer II, r = 0.91) to the standard method using contrast-to-wall ratio and also a high interclass correlation (observer II and III = 0.89/0.85). MRC found 1 of 22 (5%) polyps <6 mm, 2 of 3 (67%) polyps 6-10 mm, and 2 of 2 (100%) polyps >10 mm. CONCLUSION: MRC with fecal tagging using barium sulfate/ferumoxsil as contrast agent will give better overall assessment of the colon wall compared to barium sulfate alone. Furthermore, the VAS method of evaluating fecal tagging efficiency correlated with the standard method of calculating the contrast-to-wall ratio.     

MR colonography for the assessment of colonic anastomoses

PURPOSE: To assess colonic anastomoses in patients after surgical treatment by means of MR colonography (MRC) in comparison with conventional colonoscopy (CC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 39 patients who had previously undergone colonic resection and end-to-end-anastomosis were included in the study. MRI was based on a dark-lumen approach. Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1w) three-dimensional (3D) images were collected following the rectal administration of water for colonic distension. The MRC data were evaluated by two radiologists. The criteria employed to evaluate the anastomoses included bowel wall thickening and increased contrast uptake in this region. Furthermore, all other colonic segments were assessed for the presence of pathologies. RESULTS: In 23 and 20 patients the anastomosis was rated to be normal by MRC and CC, respectively. In three patients CC revealed a slight inflammation of the anastomosis that was missed by MRI. A moderate stenosis of the anastomosis without inflammation was detected by MRC in five patients, which was confirmed by CC. In the remaining 11 patients a relevant pathology of the anastomosis was diagnosed by both MRC and CC. Recurrent tumor was diagnosed in two patients with a history of colorectal carcinoma. In the other nine patients inflammation of the anastomosis was seen in seven with Crohn's disease (CD) and two with ulcerative colitis. MRC did not yield any false-positive findings, resulting in an overall sensitivity/specificity for the assessment of the anastomosis of 84%/100%. CONCLUSION: MRC represents a promising alternative to CC for the assessment of colonic anastomoses in patients with previous colonic resection.     

Detection of flat colorectal polyps at screening CT colonography in comparison with conventional polypoid lesions

Background Although the screening of small, flat polyps is clinically important, the role of CT colonography (CTC) screening in their detection has not been thoroughly investigated. Purpose To evaluate the detection capability and usefulness of CTC in the screening of flat and polypoid lesions by comparing CTC with optic colonoscopy findings as the gold standard. Material and Methods We evaluated the CTC detection capability for flat colorectal polyps with a flat surface and a height not exceeding 3 mm (n = 42) by comparing to conventional polypoid lesions (n = 418) according to the polyp diameter. Four types of reconstruction images including multiplanar reconstruction, volume rendering, virtual gross pathology, and virtual endoscopic images were used for visual analysis. We compared the abilities of the four reconstructions for polyp visualization. Results Detection sensitivity for flat polyps was 31.3%, 44.4%, and 87.5% for lesions measuring 2-3 mm, 4-5 mm, and ≥6 mm, respectively; the corresponding sensitivity for polypoid lesions was 47.6%, 79.0%, and 91.7%. The overall sensitivity for flat lesions (47.6%) was significantly lower than polypoid lesions (64.1%). Virtual endoscopic imaging showed best visualization among the four reconstructions. Colon cancers were detected in eight patients by optic colonoscopy, and CTC detected colon cancers in all eight patients. Conclusion CTC using 64-row multidetector CT is useful for colon cancer screening to detect colorectal polyps while the detection of small, flat lesions is still challenging.     

Dark-lumen magnetic resonance colonography in patients with suspected sigmoid diverticulitis: a feasibility study

To assess dark-lumen magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) for the evaluation of patients with suspected sigmoid diverticulitis. Forty patients with suspected sigmoid diverticulitis underwent MRC within 72 h prior to conventional colonoscopy (CC). A three-dimensional T1-weighted volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination sequence was acquired after an aqueous enema and intravenous administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. All MRC data were evaluated by two radiologists. Based on wall thickness and focal uptake of contrast material and pericolic reaction including mesenteric infiltration on T1-weighted sequence the sigmoid colon was assessed for the presence of diverticulitis. MRC classified 17 of the 40 patients as normal with regard to sigmoid diverticulitis. However, CC confirmed the presence of light inflammatory signs in four patients which were missed in MRC. MRC correctly identified wall thickness and contrast uptake of the sigmoid colon in the other 23 patients. In three of these patients false-positive findings were observed, and MRC classified the inflammation of the sigmoid colon as diverticulitis whereas CC and histopathology confirmed invasive carcinoma. MRC detected additionally relevant pathologies of the entire colon and could be performed in cases where CC was incomplete. MRC may be considered a promising alternative to CC for the detection of sigmoid diverticulitis.     

CT colonography with computer-aided polyp detection: volume and attenuation thresholds to reduce false-positive findings owing to the ileocecal valve

PURPOSE: To retrospectively identify volume and average attenuation thresholds for differentiating between ileocecal valve (ICV) and polyp at computed tomographic (CT) colonography with computer-aided detection (CAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent (with consent for future retrospective research) and institutional review board (IRB) approval were obtained for the original prospective study. This retrospective study had IRB approval, as well, and was HIPAA-compliant. A total of 496 patients were selected from a larger screening population. CT colonographic images from 394 patients (227 men, 167 women; mean age, 58.0 years; range, 40-79 years) were used as a training set, and images from 102 patients (76 men, 26 women; mean age, 59.8 years; range, 46-79 years) were used as a test set. A series of 2742 volume and attenuation thresholds, for which segmented findings both larger in volume and lower in average attenuation were labeled as ICVs and remaining findings were labeled polyps, were applied to the training set to determine settings with 100% sensitivity for polyp detection and the highest specificity for ICV detection. The optimal settings were then applied to the test set. Significance was assessed with the Fisher exact test, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: A total of 386 ICVs and 67 adenomatous polyps from the training set and 102 ICVs and 138 adenomatous polyps from the test set could be segmented with a three-dimensional segmentation algorithm. When supine and prone images were counted individually, 746 nonunique ICVs from the training set and 191 from the test set were segmentable. In the training set, a volume of 600 mm(3) and an attenuation of 36 HU provided 100% sensitivity (67 polyps; 95% CI: 93%, 100%) and the optimal 83% specificity (618 of 746 ICVs; 95% CI: 80%, 85%). When applied to the test set, this combination provided 97% sensitivity (134 of 138 polyps; 95% CI: 92%, 99%) and 84% specificity (160 of 191 ICVs; 95% CI: 78%, 89%). Differences in sensitivity and specificity in the detection of polyps between the sets were not significant. CONCLUSION: Volume and average CT attenuation thresholds can help differentiate most ICVs from true polyps.     

Detection of colorectal polyps: comparison of multi-detector row CT and MR colonography in a colon phantom

PURPOSE: To compare multi-detector row (four- and 16-section) computed tomography (CT), including a low-dose protocol, with high-field-strength (1.5- and 3.0-T) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for reader detection of colorectal polyps in a colon phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A colon phantom with simulated haustral folds and 10 polyps of varying size (2.0-8.0 mm) was imaged at four- and 16-section CT (section thicknesses of 1.25 and 0.75 mm, reconstruction increments of 0.8 and 0.7 mm, and 100 and 10 mAs, respectively, and 120 kV for both) and at 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging (three-dimensional gradient-recalled echo sequence, section thickness of 1.4 mm). Three-dimensional endoluminal images were assessed by 10 reviewers for each modality regarding polyp detection. Comparisons of sensitivities were performed by using logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, polyps were detected with a sensitivity of 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 80%, 94%) at four-section CT, 92% (95% CI: 87%, 97%) at 16-section CT, 56% (95% CI: 46%, 66%) at 1.5-T MR imaging, and 55% (95% CI: 45%, 65%) at 3.0-T MR imaging. The detection of polyps at least 4 mm in diameter was not influenced by the modality or radiation dose (sensitivity of 100%). CT performed in low-dose mode depicted all polyps with a diameter of at least 3 mm. Polyps smaller than 3 mm in diameter were detected with a sensitivity of 7.5% (1.5-T MR imaging), 22.5% (3.0-T MR imaging), and 20% (low-dose CT); detection rates were significantly greater (P < .001) with normal-dose CT (four section, 67.5%; 16 section, 82.5%). Increased spatial resolution (with CT) and higher field strength (with MR imaging) had no significant effect on polyp detection. CONCLUSION: With both multi-detector row CT and MR imaging, readers detected polyps above the clinically relevant threshold diameter of 6 mm, with similar sensitivities.     

CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting

PURPOSE: To assess the methodologic quality of available data in published reports of computed tomographic (CT) colonography by performing systematic review and meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched for colonography reports published between 1994 and 2003, without language restriction. The terms colonography, colography, CT colonoscopy, CT pneumocolon, virtual colonoscopy, and virtual endoscopy were used. Studies were selected if the focus was detection of colorectal polyps verified with within-subject reference colonoscopy by using key methodologic criteria based on information presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Virtual Colonoscopy (Boston, Mass). Two reviewers independently abstracted methodologic characteristics. Per-patient and per-polyp detection rates were extracted, and authors were contacted, when necessary. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity were calculated for different lesion size categories, and Forest plots were produced. Meta-analysis of paired sensitivity and specificity was conducted by using a hierarchical model that enabled estimation of summary receiver operating characteristic curves allowing for variation in diagnostic threshold, and the average operating point was calculated. Per-polyp sensitivity was also calculated. RESULTS: Of 1398 studies considered for inclusion, 24 met our criteria. There were 4181 patients with a study prevalence of abnormality of 15%-72%. Meta-analysis of 2610 patients, 206 of whom had large polyps, showed high per-patient average sensitivity (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 73%, 98%) and specificity (97%; 95% CI: 95%, 99%) for colonography; sensitivity and specificity decreased to 86% (95% CI: 75%, 93%) and 86% (95% CI: 76%, 93%), respectively, when the threshold was lowered to include medium polyps. When polyps of all sizes were included, studies were too heterogeneous in sensitivity (range, 45%-97%) and specificity (range, 26%-97%) to allow meaningful meta-analysis. Of 150 cancers, 144 were detected (sensitivity, 95.9%; 95% CI: 91.4%, 98.5%). Data reporting was frequently incomplete, with no generally accepted format. CONCLUSION: CT colonography seems sufficiently sensitive and specific in the detection of large and medium polyps; it is especially sensitive in the detection of symptomatic cancer. Studies are poorly reported, however, and the authors propose a minimum data set for study reporting.     

Assessment of polyp and mass histopathology by intravenous contrast-enhanced CT colonography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to demonstrate that intravenous contrast-enhanced CT colonography (CTC) can distinguish colonic adenomas from carcinomas. METHODS: Supine intravenous contrast-enhanced CTC with colonoscopic and/or surgical correlation was performed on 25 patients with colonic adenomas or carcinomas. Standard deviation of mean polyp CT attenuation was computed and assessed using ANOVA and receiver-operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: Colonoscopy confirmed 32 polyps or masses 1 to 8 cm in size. The standard deviations of CT attenuation were carcinomas (n = 13; 36 +/- 6 HU; range 28-48 HU) and adenomas (n = 19; 49 +/- 14 HU; range 31-100 HU) (P = 0.005). At a standard deviation threshold of 42 HU, the sensitivity and specificity for classifying a polyp or mass as a carcinoma were 92% and 79%, respectively. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.89 +/- 0.06 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of the standard deviation of CT attenuation on intravenous contrast-enhanced CTC permits histopathologic classification of polyps 1 cm or larger as carcinomas versus adenomas. The presence of ulceration or absence of muscular invasion in carcinomas creates overlap with adenomas, reducing the specificity of carcinoma classification.     

Feasibility study of using air as a contrast medium in MR colonography

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of using air as intraluminal contrast medium in magnetic resonance (MR) colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients underwent MR colonography (MRC) using air before colonoscopy. All patients were imaged in prone and supine positions. Each colon was divided into five segments. Two radiologists reviewed the images for the degree of colonic distension, image quality and colonic lesions. The colonic lesions identified using MR were compared with those identified on colonoscopy. RESULTS: Eight men and 14 women with mean age of 55.5 years were studied. All patients completed the MR examination. One hundred and five out of 110 (95.5%) colonic segments were well distended in both prone and supine positions. Image quality was good in all cases. Colonoscopy detected 16 lesions: three > or = 1 cm, one 7 mm lesion and 12 lesions < or = 5 mm. All lesions 1 cm or larger were detected by MRC. CONCLUSION: MRC using air and the single-shot half-Fourier rapid acquisition with refocused echoes (RARE) technique is feasible. But in this small pilot study, it had low sensitivity for the detection of polyps less than 1 cm in diameter.     

Spiral CT pneumocolon: applications, status and limitations

CT pneumocolon is a promising new technique in the diagnosis and management of colon pathology. CT pneumocolon can detect (sensitivity >95%) and stage (accuracy 79%) colorectal cancer and is very accurate in the differentiation of malignant from benign colonic pathologies. It has excellent detection rates for polyps >10 mm in diameter. Several studies using 3D virtual colonoscopy have already proven its high sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection making this technique robust as a screening tool. The combined results for virtual colonoscopy, from all centres, show a sensitivity of >85% in the detection of polyps 10 mm or greater in size, 70-80% for 5-9 mm polyps and an overall specificity of 90%. CT pneumocolon is a safe, non-invasive and cost-effective method for detecting colonic carcinomas and adenomas and correctly identifying which patients need further colonoscopy. The technique is quick, well tolerated and non-operator dependent. It can also image the proximal colon when distal stenoses prevent endoscopic and barium examination. CT pneumocolon is able to identify the features and complications of inflammatory bowel disease. Further research is warranted to fully assess its impact in terms of a screening tool, acceptability, availability and cost benefit.     

False-negative results at multi-detector row CT colonography: multivariate analysis of causes for missed lesions

PURPOSE: To determine causes of false-negative results at multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) colonography and determine presumptive causes with logistic regression analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. The study included 394 colonic segments in 31 men and 25 women at high risk for colorectal cancer (mean age +/- standard deviation, 60.2 years +/- 9.3 for men and 56.8 years +/- 13.3 for women). Multi-detector row CT colonography and colonoscopy (reference standard) were performed in a blinded manner, and the results were compared. CT colonographic findings were interpreted in consensus by two readers using a primary two-dimensional with three-dimensional problem-solving approach. Adequacy of colonic preparation and distention was recorded. Sensitivity and specificity were obtained with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Lesions missed at CT colonography were retrospectively reassessed to identify why they were missed, and, if the causes were not apparent, logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the presumptive causes. RESULTS: Colonic preparation and distention were optimal in 17 patients (30%) but suboptimal in 37 (66%) and poor enough to make the results nondiagnostic in two (4%). Twenty-nine of 63 lesions were missed at CT colonography. When all flat, sessile, and pedunculated lesions (n = 63) were included, sensitivities were 75% (nine of 12; 95% CI: 48%, 100%) for lesions 10 mm or larger and 79% (19 of 24; 95% CI: 65%, 93%) for those 6 mm or larger. When only sessile and pedunculated lesions (n = 60) were included, corresponding sensitivities were 100% (nine of nine; 73%, 100%) and 90% (19 of 21; 78%, 100%), respectively. All three missed lesions larger than 10 mm were flat, and all three flat lesions were missed. Two 3-mm high lesions, including one invasive adenocarcinoma, were misinterpreted as feces at blinded image review; one 1-mm high tubular adenoma with adenocarcinoma foci could not be visualized even in retrospect. Sessile or pedunculated polyps 5 mm or smaller were significantly more likely to be missed than those 6 mm or larger (adjusted odds ratio, 11.6; P = .027). CONCLUSION: Aside from inadequate bowel preparation and/or distention, flat lesions and small polyps are the two main causes for missed lesions at multi-detector row CT colonography.     

CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis

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

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

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