Importance of extracolonic findings at IV contrast medium-enhanced CT colonography versus those at non-enhanced CT colonography

To compare the clinical importance of extracolonic findings at intravenous (IV) contrast-enhanced CT colonography versus those at non-enhanced CT colonography. IV contrast medium-enhanced (n=72) and non-enhanced (n=30) multidetector CT colonography was performed in 102 symptomatic patients followed by conventional colonoscopy on the same day. The impact of extracolonic findings on further work up and treatment was assessed by a review of patient records. Extracolonic findings were divided into two groups: either leading to further work up respectively having an impact on therapy or not. A total of 303 extracolonic findings were detected. Of those, 71% (215/303) were found on IV contrast-enhanced CT, and 29% (88/303) were found on non-enhanced CT colonography. The extracolonic findings in 25% (26/102) of all patients led to further work up or had an impact on therapy. Twenty-two of these patients underwent CT colonography with IV contrast enhancement, and four without. The percentage of extracolonic findings leading to further work up or having an impact on therapy was higher for IV contrast-enhanced (31%; 22/72) than for non-enhanced (13%; 4/30) CT scans (P=0.12). IV contrast-enhanced CT colonography produced more extracolonic findings than non-enhanced CT colonography. A substantially greater proportion of findings on IV contrast-enhanced CT colonography led to further work up and treatment than did non-enhanced CT colonography.     

Incidental extracolonic findings at CT colonography

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency of extracolonic findings at computed tomographic (CT) colonography and the effect of these findings on subsequent patient treatment and cost. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conventional transverse CT colonographic scans in 264 consecutive patients were evaluated independently by two radiologists. Extracolonic findings were classified as having high, moderate, or low clinical importance. The effect of CT findings on patient treatment was assessed with chart review. The cost of additional examinations was calculated by using 1999 Medicare reimbursements. RESULTS: Thirty (11%) patients had highly important extracolonic findings, which resulted in further examinations in 18 (7%) patients, including ultrasonography in 10, CT in 13, and intravenous pyelography in one. Six patients underwent surgery because of incidentally discovered CT colonographic findings. Two patients with findings of moderate or low importance underwent additional imaging. A total of $7,324 was required for work-up for extracolonic findings (mean of an additional $28 per examination). Three extracolonic malignancies were overlooked at CT colonography. CONCLUSION: Additional work-up of extracolonic CT colonographic findings was relatively infrequent but was often worthwhile when performed for lesions classified as highly important. The evaluation of extracolonic structures at CT colonography has definite limitations with regard to solid organs but can help detect serious disease without substantially increasing the cost per patient.     

Visceral fat analysis at CT colonography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Obesity is associated with increased risks for colorectal neoplasia. Few studies have examined quantitative body fat measurements as predictors of colorectal polyps. The objective is to determine whether visceral fat is associated with colorectal polyps at computed tomography (CT) colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Case (n = 25) and control (n = 25) subjects with proven large (>1 cm) colorectal adenomas or normal colons respectively were randomly selected from among an established CT colonography research study cohort. Using supine CT colonography data, the body wall was traced at three levels: top of the right kidney, iliac crest, and superior acetabulum. Total area from the three slices and each slice area were determined within the visceral fat range (-170 to -45 Hounsfield units) and recorded within the selected region. Visceral fat measures were compared between patient groups with and without polyps. RESULTS: None of the single slice visceral fat area measures or summed measures predicted case or control status. The most informative visceral fat measure was obtained at the top of the right kidney with a maximum area under the received operator characteristic curve of 0.77 (0.05 SE). For a selected sensitivity of 75%, the maximum specificity for a large (>or=1 cm) polyp was 64%. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, visceral fat measures at CT colonography were not significantly associated with the presence of large colorectal adenomas. However, odd ratios were elevated by a factor of 2. This suggests that a larger study may be justified.     

Bowel wall visualisation at CT colonography

Purpose: To evaluate the quality of bowel wall visualisation at CT colonography and the impact of examination in the supine and prone positions.Material and Methods: After bowel preparation, 111 patients underwent CT colonography. Air distension, degree of fluid redistribution with change in body position (supine and prone), influence of residual stool on bowel wall assessability, and quality of overall colon visualisation were evaluated using scales.Results: Thirty of 110 patients (27%) had complete overall visualisation of the colon wall and 52 (47%) had subtotal visualisation of a limited part of the colon. The entire colon was more often air-filled in the prone position (46%) than in the supine position (18%). Joint review of supine and prone data showed that for all colon segments, except the sigmoid (86%), ≥95% of the patients had complete air filling. All patients had residual fluid. In 75% to 99%, depending on segment, fluid did not interfere with the bowel wall visualisation in the combined evaluation of supine and prone data sets. Thirty-one patients had residual stool with potential negative influence on polyp detection.Conclusions: The colon wall was completely, or almost completely, visualised in 75% of the patients, and examination in the supine and prone positions was necessary for complete visualisation.     

Multislice CT colonography: current status and limitations

CT colonography (CTC) is a promising method for colorectal cancer screening because it provides a full structural evaluation of the entire colon. It has a superior safety profile, a low rate of complications, and high patient acceptance. In addition, CTC offers the real possibility of eliminating the cathartic bowel preparation, one of the biggest obstacles to patient compliance with colorectal cancer screening. Results of CTC studies in recently published literature are extremely encouraging, demonstrating that this method of screening can detect lesions equal to or larger than 8 mm with few false-positive findings.     

Multislice CT colonography: current status and limitations

CT colonography (CTC) is a promising method for colorectal screening providing a full structural evaluation of the entire colon and gaining in popularity due to a superior safety profile, a low rate of complications, and high patient acceptance. Multislice CT (MSCT) has further improved the diagnostic potential of CTC by generating high-resolution CT images of the abdomen and pelvis in shorter acquisition times than was previously possible. Over the past year, multiple studies have been published on every aspect of CTC including techniques, image display, image reconstruction, and clinical trial results assessing the feasibility of CTC as a screening tool. Yet despite increasing clinical use, the appropriate role of CTC in colorectal cancer screening remains undefined and barriers to widespread adoption remain. In particular, though the test is generally regarded as easy to perform, accurate interpretation requires a steep learning curve. While several large studies have found high sensitivity and specificity, the accuracy of CTC in a screening population has yet to be verified and almost no health insurance plans reimburse for its use in colorectal screening. Ongoing research in computer-aided detection and new software tools, however, have the potential to increase accuracy and ease of interpretation significantly, accelerating its acceptance as a colorectal screening tool.     

Significance of missed polyps at CT colonography

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine the clinical significance of polyps missed on CT colonography using histologic analysis and the natural history of colorectal polyps and to propose guidelines for follow-up colon surveillance based on CT colonographic findings. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. One hundred eighty-six men (age range, 40-87 years; mean, 62.3 years) underwent CT colonography immediately before conventional colonoscopy. All polyps detected on CT colonography were measured and imaged, and their segmental location was documented. All polyps detected on colonoscopy were measured, photographed, biopsied, and histologically analyzed. Results of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy were compared with the final pathology reports. Conventional colonoscopy was used as the gold standard unless CT colonography showed a lesion measuring 10 mm or more that was not detected on conventional colonoscopy and had characteristics of a polyp. In these cases, follow-up conventional colonoscopy was offered. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one polyps were detected on conventional colonoscopy. CT colonography prospectively detected 53 polyps. Histologic analysis of the polyps not detected on CT colonography showed that of those 5 mm or smaller, 58.1% were not adenomas, and of those measuring 6-9 mm, 42.8% were not adenomas. Both missed polyps at CT colonography of 10 mm or more were adenomas. Of the 22 polyps measuring 10 mm or more, three were not detected on conventional colonoscopy. Of these three, CT colonography showed a lesion having characteristics of a polyp, follow-up endoscopy confirmed the presence of the lesion, and histologic analysis showed a villous adenoma, a tubulovillous adenoma, and a tubular adenoma. CONCLUSION: If CT colonography shows no abnormality, follow-up screening in 5 years is recommended. If CT colonography detects a lesion smaller than 5 mm, follow-up imaging in 3-5 years is recommended. If CT colonography detects a lesion measuring 6 mm or more, endoscopy and polypectomy should be offered unless contraindicated.     

CT colonography and MR colonography: current status, research directions and comparison

With the introduction of multidetector technology in CT and the moveable table with integrated coil modules in MRI, the concept of multiorgan screening has become realistic. CT colonography and MR colonography are new radiologic techniques that promise to be highly sensitive colorectal screening examinations. This article reviews the current status and research directions in CT colonography and MR colonography, and compares these methods. Received: 9 October 1999; Revised: 10 February 2000; Accepted: 10 February 2000     

Colonic perforation at CT colonography: assessment of risk in a multicenter large cohort

PURPOSE: To assess retrospectively the incidence, clinical features, and treatment of colonic perforation at computed tomographic (CT) colonography in a large multicenter cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed in accordance with the institutional ethics committees' requirements of a retrospective review in each of the participating centers, and no informed consent was required. A review of all patients who underwent CT colonography between January 2001 and December 2004 in 11 medical centers representing more than 95% of studies performed in a single country was performed to determine the rate of colorectal perforation. Data about patient demographics and patient- and procedure-related risk were recorded. Information about the location of the perforation, its likely mechanism, and treatment was collected. Analysis included calculation of rates of colonic perforation and surgical treatment and of 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 11 870 CT colonographic studies were performed in 6837 (57.6%) men and 5033 (42.4%) women (mean age, 59.9 years; range, 38-90 years) with seven cases of colorectal perforation, yielding a risk rate of 0.059% (one of 1696 studies; 95% confidence interval: one of 974, 971 of 6537). The mean age of the patients with perforation was 77.8 years. Six (84%) of seven cases of perforation occurred in symptomatic patients at high risk for colorectal neoplasia, and one (16%) occurred in an asymptomatic average-risk patient. All studies were performed after insufflation of room air. Six (84%) cases of perforation occurred in patients in whom a rectal tube was inserted, and in five of them, a balloon was inflated. Five (71%) cases of perforation occurred in the sigmoid colon; and two (29%), in the rectum. Four (57%) patients (one in 2968 patients; 95% confidence interval: 1.5 in 10 000, 14.7 in 10 000) required surgical treatment. Possible factors that contributed to perforation were left inguinal hernia containing colon (n = 4), severe diverticulosis (n = 3), and obstructive carcinoma (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Perforation of the colon and rectum is a rare complication of CT colonography. Older age and underlying concomitant colonic disease were present in patients with perforation.     

Current status on performance of CT colonography and clinical indications

CT colonography (CTC) is a robust and reliable imaging test of the colon. Accuracy for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is as high as conventional colonoscopy (CC). Identification of polyp is size dependent, with large lesions (≥10 mm) accurately detected and small lesions (6–9 mm) identified with moderate to good sensitivity. Recent studies show good sensitivity for the identification of nonpolypoid (flat) lesions as well.     

Positional change in colon polyps at CT colonography

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency with which polyps change positions with respect to the bowel surface and the cause of this movement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 2001 to March 2003, 113 patients underwent computed tomographic (CT) colonography prior to colonoscopy. For all confirmed polyps that were 5 mm and larger, images obtained with CT colonography were retrospectively analyzed by one author to determine if the polyp was present on both data sets or on only one data set. Retrospective evaluation of these polyps for ventral or dorsal location within the colonic lumen was performed for data sets obtained with patients in the prone and the supine position. The data sets were further reviewed by another author to determine the cause of positional change, when present. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients had a total of 49 histologically proved colorectal polyps that were 5 mm and larger. Eight of 49 colorectal polyps were depicted only on images obtained with the patient in the supine or prone position. Of the remaining 41 polyps that were depicted on images obtained with the patient in the supine and the prone position, 11 moved from a dorsal to a ventral location or vice versa relative to the colonic surface when the patient changed position. Five of these polyps were pedunculated on a stalk. Six were sessile; two were located in the sigmoid colon, two in the transverse colon, one in the ascending colon, and one in the cecum. In these cases, polyp mobility was related to positional changes of the colon in the mesentery, as opposed to true mobility of the polyp. CONCLUSION: In this series, 27% of polyps moved from a ventral location to a dorsal location relative to the colonic surface when the patient was turned from the supine to the prone position; thus, polyps appeared to be mobile. Thus, a mobile filling defect cannot be assumed to be residual fecal material at CT colonography.     

Utility of intravenously administered contrast material at CT colonography

PURPOSE: To determine if intravenously administered contrast material improves overall reader confidence in the assessment of the colon, large-bowel wall conspicuity, and diagnostic accuracy in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancers at computed tomographic (CT) colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred patients underwent CT colonography in both supine and prone positions. A five-point scale was used to assess the effect of contrast enhancement on overall reader confidence and bowel wall conspicuity. Eighty-one patients underwent CT colonography with complete colonoscopic or surgical correlation; diagnostic accuracy was compared in 48 patients who received contrast material and 33 who did not. RESULTS: Bowel preparation was ideal in 38 (19%) of 200 patients. Enhanced prone CT images had significantly better scores for reader confidence (4.9 +/- 0.1 vs 4.6 +/- 0.1, P: <.005) and bowel wall conspicuity (4.6 +/- 0.2 vs 4.2 +/- 0.2, P: <.005) compared with those of nonenhanced prone images despite no significant difference in bowel distention (3.8 +/- 0.2 vs 3.9 +/- 0. 1, P: =.8). Enhancement significantly improved the ability to depict medium (6-9-mm) polyps (75% vs 58%, P: <.05). Three large (10-19-mm) polyps were detected only with contrast enhancement; two remained submerged despite dual positioning. CONCLUSION: The use of intravenously administered contrast material significantly improved reader confidence in the assessment of bowel wall conspicuity and the ability of CT colonography to depict medium polyps in suboptimally prepared colons.     

Laxative-free CT colonography

Objectives

The aim of this study was to determine if the introduction of faecal tagging to CT colonography (CTC) made the examination easier to tolerate or reduced the number of false-positives.

Methods

Our department changed bowel preparation for CT colonography from Picolax (Ferring Pharmaceuticals Ltd, London, UK) to Gastrografin® (Bracco Diagnostics Inc, Princeton, NJ) only with a modified diet. Questionnaires were given to a subgroup of patients within these cohorts. The numbers of false-positives were compared between two cohorts before and after this change. false-positives were defined as lesions reported on CT that were not confirmed by subsequent endoscopic examination. Polyps were matched if they were in the same or adjacent segments, and were within 5 mm of the reported size.

Results

412 patients were identified from the Picolax cohort, and 116 from the Gastrografin cohort. 62 patients in each group completed questionnaires. Gastrografin produced less diarrhoea; 34% had five or more bowel motions in the previous day and night, compared with 77% for Picolax (p<0.001), although more patients found drinking it unpleasant compared with Picolax (85% reported drinking Picolax as “easy” vs 61% for Gastrografin; p=0.002). Picolax produced more non-diagnostic examinations, although this difference was not statistically significant. There was not a significant reduction in the numbers of false-positives (2 out of 112 for Gastrografin group, 14 out of 389 for the Picolax group; p=0.54).

Conclusion

Switching from Picolax to Gastrografin as a CTC preparation technique produced less diarrhoea, but did not reduce the number of false-positives.     

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.     

Automated volumetry at CT colonography: a phantom study

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of a computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithm for measuring polyp-like structures on CT colonography (CTC) images of a phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a Plexiglas phantom to which we affixed a series of idealized Plexiglas polyp-like objects, including spheres and hemispheres. We imaged the phantom in a four-channel detector CT scanner at a 1.3 mm slice thickness with a reconstruction interval of 0.6 mm, using combinations of 100 mAs, 30 mAs, horizontal and vertical orientation. For each set of CT images, the interior surface of the phantom was segmented. The CAD algorithm was applied to the resulting surface to identify the polypoid regions of interest and to calculate their volume and maximum linear dimension. Calculated values were then compared with actual values to yield percent error in each measurement. RESULTS: The mean error in volume for the subgroups of spheres and hemispheres was 3% and 5% respectively. Mean error in linear dimension was approximately 2% for both shape subgroups. All CAD-calculated values were closely correlated with their respective actual values. Parameter selection did not significantly affect the accuracy of the calculated measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Our CAD software accurately measured the greatest linear dimension and the volume of each of the polyp-like structures in our phantom. Results were largely independent of phantom orientation and the CT exposure factors.