CT仿真结肠镜与电子结肠镜对结直肠疾病诊断的对照研究

目的探讨CT仿真结肠镜(CTVC)在结直肠疾病,尤其是溃疡性结肠炎诊断中的价值。方法应用螺旋CT对2004年5月至2005年1月就诊于首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院的58例疑诊结直肠病变患者进行容积扫描,获取仿真结肠镜图像,将所得结果与结肠镜结果进行比较分析。结果CTVC检查均获得成功,共检出结直肠癌14例,结直肠息肉15例,溃疡性结肠炎14例,正常者6例。CTVC对结直肠疾病总的敏感性为82.7%(43/52),特异性为100%,准确性为84.5%(49/58),阳性预测值87.8%(43/49),阴性预测值40.0%(6/15),Kappa值为0.497;CTVC对溃疡性结肠炎诊断的敏感性为70.0%(14/20),特异性为100%,准确性为76.9%(20/26),阳性预测值70.0%(14/20),阴性预测值50.0%(6/12),Kappa值为0.519。结论CTVC是一种无创的检查方法,具有一定优势,但仍存在一些弊端,因此对于溃疡性结肠炎诊断仅是一种有效的补充,尚不能完全替代常规结肠镜检查。     

Risk stratification for colon neoplasia: screening strategies using colonoscopy and computerized tomographic colonography

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We developed a risk index to identify low-risk patients who may be screened for colorectal cancer with computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) instead of colonoscopy. METHODS: Asymptomatic persons aged 50 years or older who had undergone screening colonoscopy were randomized retrospectively to derivation (n = 1512) and validation (n = 1493) subgroups. We developed a risk index (based on age, sex, and family history) from the derivation group. The expected results of 3 screening strategies--universal colonoscopy, universal CTC, and a stratified strategy of colonoscopy for high-risk and CTC for low-risk patients--were then compared. Outcomes for the 3 strategies were extrapolated from the known colonic findings in each patient, using sensitivity/specificity values for CTC from the medical literature. Results were validated in the validation subgroup. RESULTS: In the derivation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% of advanced neoplasia and universal CTC detected only 70% and resulted in the largest total number of procedures and number of patients undergoing both procedures. The stratified strategy detected 92% of advanced neoplasia, requiring colonoscopy in 68% and CTC in 36% of patients, with only 4% having to undergo both procedures. In the validation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% and universal CTC detected 71% of advanced neoplasia, whereas the stratified strategy detected 89%, requiring colonoscopy in 64% and CTC in 40%. Unlike universal CTC, the stratified strategy was independent of assumptions for CTC sensitivity, specificity, and threshold for colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified strategy based on our risk index may optimize the yield of colonoscopic resources and reduce the number of patients undergoing colonoscopy.     

Virtual CT colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: a prospective study

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

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.     

Three-dimensional MR and axial CT colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for detection of colon pathologies

AIM: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of MR colonography (MRC) and CT performance in detecting colon lesions, and to compare their sensitivity and specificity with that of conventional colonoscopy. METHODS: Forty-two patients suspected of having colonic lesions, because of rectal bleeding, positive fecal occult blood test results or altered bowel habits, underwent the examinations. After insertion of a rectal tube, the colon was filled with 1000-1500 mL of a mixture of 9 g/L NaCI solution, 15-20 mL of 0.5 mmol/L gadopentetate dimeglumine and 100 mL of iodinized contrast material. Once colonic distension was achieved, three-dimensional gradient-echo (3D-GRE) sequences for MR colonography and complementary MR images were taken in all cases. Immediately after MR colonography, abdominal CT images were taken by spiral CT in the axial and supine position. Then all patients were examined by conventional colonoscopy (CC). RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of MRC for colon pathologies were 96.4% and 100%, respectively. The percentage of correct diagnosis by MRC was 97.6%. The sensitivity and specificity of CT for colon pathologies were 92.8%, 100%, respectively. The percentage of correct diagnosis by CT was 95.2%. CONCLUSION: In detecting colon lesions, MRC achieved a diagnostic accuracy similar to CC. However, MRC is minimally invasive, with no need for sedation or analgesics during investigation. There is a lower percentage of perforation risk, and all colon segments can be evaluated due to multi-sectional imaging availability; intramural, extra-intestinal components of colonic lesions, metastasis and any additional lesions can be evaluated easily. MRC and CT colonography are new radiological techniques that promise to be highly sensitive in the detection of colorectal mass and inflammatory bowel lesions.     

Computed tomographic colonography in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test refusing optical colonoscopy

BackgroundRefusal of colonoscopy is a drawback of colorectal cancer screening programmes based on faecal occult blood test. Computed-tomographic-colonography is generally more accepted than colonoscopy.AimTo compare adherence to computed-tomographic-colonography and second-invitation colonoscopy in subjects with positive faecal test refusing colonoscopy.MethodsWe performed a prospective study in 198 subjects with positive faecal test who refused first referral to colonoscopy in one endoscopy service of the Florence screening programme. Subjects were randomly invited to computed-tomographic-colonography (n = 100) or re-invited to colonoscopy (n = 98). Mail invitation was followed by a questionnaire administered by phone. Computed-tomographic-colonography findings were verified with colonoscopy.Results32 subjects could not be reached, 71 (35.9%) had undergone colonoscopy on their own; 4 were excluded for contraindications; 30/48 (62.5%) in the computed-tomographic-colonography arm and 11/43 (25.6%) in the colonoscopy arm accepted the proposed examinations (p < 0.001). Four advanced adenomas and 1 cancer were found in the 28 subjects who ultimately underwent computed-tomographic-colonography and 2 advanced adenomas and 2 cancers in the 9 subjects who ultimately underwent second-invitation colonoscopy.ConclusionSubjects with positive faecal occult blood test refusing colonoscopy show a higher adherence to computed-tomographic-colonography than to second invitation colonoscopy.     

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.     

Comparison of multidetector computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection of colorectal polyps and cancer.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a new technique for detecting colonic neoplasms. Data on the utility of this method in the Indian population are limited. METHODS: Forty-two patients with symptoms of colonic disease underwent CTC and conventional colonoscopy (CC) within one week of each other and the findings at these two investigations were compared. RESULTS: The entire colon could be evaluated in 38 patients on CTC and in 23 patients on CC. Of the 19 patients who had incomplete CC, 14 had occlusive colonic lesions. Of the 86 lesions detected on CC, 76 (88.4%) were correctly identified on CTC with regard to location and size. CTC was false negative for 10 lesions and false positive for 5 lesions in 3 patients. The sensitivity and specificity of CTC were 65% and 77%, respectively, for lesions 1-5 mm; 97% and 83% for 6-9 mm-sized lesions; and 100% and 100% for lesions 10 mm or larger. Extracolonic findings were seen in 24 of 42 patients (57%). CONCLUSIONS : CTC is reliable for detecting lesions 6 mm or larger in size. It permits evaluation of the region proximal to an occlusive growth, which is often not possible with CC.     

Patient preferences for CT colonography,conventional colonoscopy,and bowel preparation

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine patient pre-examination expectations and postexamination appraisals for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy and bowel preparation. METHODS: Prospective evaluation of 120 patients at defined risk for colorectal neoplasia was performed with CT colonography followed by colonoscopy on the same day. Subjects were stratified by age and sex (67 women and 53 men) and were randomized to receive either manual air (n = 61) or CO(2) (n = 59) insufflation during CT colonography. Patients' expectations were assessed just before the two examinations, and appraisals were assessed 2 to 3 days afterward regarding pain/discomfort, embarrassment, difficulty, overall assessment, preference for future testing, and bowel preparation. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in appraisals of manual air versus CO(2) insufflation techniques. For both CT colonography and colonoscopy, patients' appraisals after the procedure were significantly more positive than prior expectations. Patients expressed more favorable appraisals of colonoscopy for pain (p < 0.001) and embarrassment (p < 0.001), with most responses being "none" to "a little" for both examinations. Overall appraisals of the tests were favorable and similar between CT and colonoscopy: patients mainly expressed "not unpleasant" to "a little unpleasant" (95%, 114/120 for both examinations). Overall, appraisal of the bowel preparation was the most negative. Preferences for future testing were more favorable toward CT: of the patients, 58% (69/120) preferred CT, 14% (17/120) preferred colonoscopy, and 28% (34/120) had no preference. CONCLUSIONS: Overall appraisals were similar and positive for both CT colonography and colonoscopy, with less favorable appraisals of the bowel preparation. Most patients stated that they would prefer CT for future evaluation.     

Air-inflated magnetic resonance colonography in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy: Comparison with intraoperative findings, pathology specimens, and follow-up conventional colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: To assess the usefulness of air-inflated magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy (CC). METHODS: From September 2001 to December 2004, 51 patients (25 male and 26 female, age range 32 to 85 years) with incomplete colonoscopy were recruited to have MRC performed. Half-fourier single short turbo spin echo (HASTE) axial, coronal, and three dimensional fat suppressed gradient echo sequence (VIBE) coronal images in both the prone and supine positions were performed for each patient. MRC was reviewed by two radiologists for detection of synchronous colonic lesion. The location and size of lesions were recorded and were compared with the findings of CC. Patients were managed according to the clinical situation and intraoperative findings were compared with MRC findings. Follow-up colonoscopy was performed in 29 patients. The follow-up colonoscopy findings were then compared with the MRC findings. RESULTS: Forty-four patients had incomplete colonoscopy because of an obstructing tumor. The other seven patients had incomplete colonoscopy because of excessive bowel looping. Apart from one patient suffering from chronic obstructive airway disease with resulting nondiagnostic MRC, all other patients had MRC successfully performed. Each colon was divided into six bowel segments for analysis. All 300 segments were of diagnostic quality and were assessed by the MRC. MRC correctly identified all 44 obstructing tumors demonstrated by initial CC. Synchronous tumors in proximal colonic segments were identified in two patients by MRC. In addition, MRC identified two colonic tumors located in bowel segments inaccessible by CC because of excessive looping. CONCLUSIONS: MRC is useful for detection of colonic pathology and assessment of proximal colon in patients with colonic cancer after incomplete colonoscopy.     

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.     

Computed tomographic colonography: prevalence, nature, and clinical significance of extracolonic findings in a community screening program

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal neoplasia screening by computed tomographic colonography (CTC) may lead to the detection of incidental extracolonic findings. We report the prevalence and clinical significance of extracolonic pathology found within a community-based CTC screening program and the cost of clinical follow-up and further investigation of these findings. METHODS: A total of 432 asymptomatic subjects at an average risk of colorectal neoplasia, aged 50-69, had screening by CTC using a low radiation dose protocol. Axial images were prospectively examined for extracolonic lesions and those considered clinically relevant were followed up. All clinic visits and further investigations were tallied to calculate the incremental cost to the screening CTC. RESULTS: A total of 146 extracolonic lesions were detected in 118 (27.3%) subjects. Thirty-two (7.4%) subjects had clinically relevant extracolonic abnormalities and nine (2.1%) subjects may derive a clinical benefit from the detection of these lesions. A single CTC costed $171.12, and following up extracolonic findings resulted in an additional $24.37 (14.2%) per CTC. Limiting reporting to the aorta and kidneys would have reduced the number of subjects requiring follow-up to 14 (3.2%), and decreased the cost increment to 4.7% without detriment to clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Extracolonic findings of screening CTC are common, but infrequent of clinical importance. The additional burden of following up these findings was modest and could have been further reduced if clear clinical and radiological criteria and pathways for their further investigation were defined.     

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 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.