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.     

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.     

Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study used a low lesion prevalence population reflective of the screening setting to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of computerized tomographic (CT) colonography for detection of colorectal polyps. METHODS: This prospective, blinded study comprised 703 asymptomatic persons at higher-than-average risk for colorectal cancer who underwent CT colonography followed by same-day colonoscopy. Two of 3 experienced readers interpreted each CT colonography examination. RESULTS: Overall lesion prevalence for adenomas >/=1 cm in diameter was 5%. Seventy percent of all lesions were proximal to the descending colon. With colonoscopy serving as the gold standard, CT colonography detected 34%, 32%, 73%, and 63% of the 59 polyps >/=1 cm for readers 1, 2, 3, and double-reading, respectively; and 35%, 29%, 57%, and 54% of the 94 polyps 5-9 mm for readers 1, 2, 3, and double-reading, respectively. Specificity for CT colonography ranged from 95% to 98% and 86% to 95% for >1 cm and 5-9-mm polyps, respectively. Interobserver variability was high for CT colonography with kappa statistic values ranging from -0.67 to 0.89. CONCLUSIONS: In a low prevalence setting, polyp detection rates at CT colonography are well below those at colonoscopy. These rates are less than previous reports based largely on high lesion prevalence cohorts. High interobserver variability warrants further investigation but may be due to the low prevalence of polyps in this cohort and the high impact on total sensitivity of each missed polyp. Specificity, based on large numbers, is high and exhibits excellent agreement among observers.     

Virtual colonography: identification and differentiation of colorectal lesions using multi-detector computed tomography

OBJECTIVE: Early detection of precancerous or malignant lesions may be decisive for prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer. In this prospective feasibility study, multi-detector spiral computed tomography (CT) colonography was compared with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-eight patients underwent CT colonography (standard colonoscopy preparation, distension with room air, prone and supine position) immediately before colonoscopy. Sixty-five (83%) were asymptomatic screening subjects, while the rest had symptoms suggestive of colorectal disease. Presence, location, and size of lesions were prospectively assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CT colonography were calculated using conventional colonoscopy as the reference standard. RESULTS: Conventional colonoscopy was normal in 52 patients. In 26 patients a total of 49 polyps and 3 carcinomas were identified. All three carcinomas and 39 polyps (80%) were identified by CT colonography. Seven of 7 polyps > 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.     

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.     

Comparison of the relative sensitivity of CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema for screen detection of colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In a population reflective of a screening setting, our aim was to compare the relative sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT) colonography with double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) for detection of colorectal polyps and to assess the added value of double reading at CT colonography, using endoscopy as the arbiter. METHODS: This prospective, blinded study comprised 837 asymptomatic persons at higher than average risk for colorectal cancer who underwent CT colonography followed by same-day DCBE. Examinations with polyps > or =5 mm in diameter were referred to colonoscopy. RESULTS: CT colonography readers detected 56%-79% of polyps > or =10 mm in diameter. In comparison, the sensitivity at DCBE varied between 39% and 56% for the 31 polyps > or =1 cm. All of the readers detected more polyps at CT colonography than DCBE, but the difference was statistically significant for only a single reader (P = 0.02). Relative specificity for polyps > or =10 mm on a per-patient basis ranged from 96% to 99% at CT colonography, and 99%-100% at DCBE. Doubly read CT colonography detected significantly more polyps than DCBE (81% vs. 45% for polyps > or =1 cm [P = <0.01], and 72% vs. 44% for polyps 5-9 mm [P < or = 0.01]). CONCLUSIONS: Double-read CT colonography is significantly more sensitive in detecting polyps than single-read double contrast barium enema. DCBE was significantly more specific than CT colonography.     

Findings on optical colonoscopy after positive CT colonography exam

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

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.     

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 virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study

OBJECTIVES: Computed tomographic (CT) colonography or virtual colonoscopy is a new diagnostic method for the colon and rectum, developed on the basis of spiral computed axial tomography and employing virtual reality technology. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of CT colonography compared with colonoscopy in a prospective, blinded study in one single institution in Italy. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients randomly selected among those attending the open-access endoscopy unit for diagnostic colonoscopy underwent colonoscopy and spiral CT. The images obtained were transmitted to generate the virtual colonoscopy pictures. A supervisor compared the results with the findings of conventional colonoscopy. RESULTS: CT colonography diagnosed seven of eight tumors, one being missed because the patient had been inadequately prepared. In 28 patients, CT colonography identified 26 polyps of 45 (57.8% sensitivity, 92.6% specificity, 86.7% positive predictive value), regardless of their size. The sensitivity in detecting colonic polyps was 31.8% (7/22) in the first 25 cases and 91.6% (11/12) in the last 20 patients. CT colonography missed one flat adenoma, some angioectasias and colonic lesions because of portal hypertension in one patient, Crohn's disease ulcers in two patients, and ulcerative colitis lesions in three. CONCLUSIONS: CT colonography shows poor sensitivity for identifying colonic polyps and does not always detect neoplastic lesions. Flat lesions are impossible to see by this method.     

Meta-analysis comparing CT colonography, air contrast barium enema, and colonoscopy

Introduction

Published studies have reported a wide range of sensitivities and specificities for computed tomographic (CT) colonography for polyp detection, generating controversy regarding its diagnostic accuracy.

Methods

A meta-analysis of published studies comparing the accuracies of CT colonography and colonoscopy for polyp detection was performed. The pooled per-patient sensitivities and specificities were calculated at various thresholds for polyp size. Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were also constructed.

Results

Thirty studies were included in the meta-analysis of CT colonography. The pooled per-patient sensitivity of CT colonography was higher for polyps greater than 10 mm (0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.88) compared with polyps 6 to 10 mm (0.63, 95% CI, 0.52-0.75) and polyps 0 to 5 mm (0.56, 95% CI, 0.42-0.70). Similarly, the exact area under the sROC curve (area ± standard error) was higher using a threshold greater than 10 mm (0.898 ± 0.063) compared with thresholds of greater than 5 mm and any size (0.884 ± 0.033 and 0.822 ± 0.059, respectively). There were no significant differences in the diagnostic characteristics of 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional CT colonography. At a threshold greater than 5 mm, the exact area under the sROC curve was significantly higher for endoscopic colonoscopy compared with CT colonography (0.998 ± 0.006 vs 0.884 ± 0.033, P < .005).

Conclusions

CT colonography has a reasonable sensitivity and specificity for detecting large polyps but was less accurate than endoscopic colonoscopy for smaller polyps. Thus, CT colonography may not be a reasonable alternative in situations in which a small polyp may be clinically relevant.     

Is virtual colonoscopy a cost-effective option to screen for colorectal cancer?

OBJECTIVE: Computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) colonography is a new technique that uses data generated from CT or MR imaging to create two- and three-dimensional scans of the colon. It has been advocated to become the new primary technique of screening for colorectal cancer. The economic feasibility of such recommendation, however, has not yet been evaluated. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of two screening strategies using CT colonography or conventional colonoscopy was compared by computer models based on a Markov process. We supposed that a hypothetical population of 100,000 subjects aged 50 yr undergoes a screening procedure every 10 yr. Suspicious findings of CT colonography are worked-up by colonoscopy. After polypectomy, colonoscopy is repeated every 3 yr until no adenomatous polyps are found. RESULTS: Under baseline conditions, screening by CT colonography costs $24,586 per life-year saved, compared with $20,930 spent on colonoscopy screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing CT colonography to no screening and colonoscopy to CT colonography were $11,484 and $10,408, respectively. Screening by colonoscopy remains more cost-effective even if the sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography both rise to 100%. For the two screening procedures to become similarly cost-effective, CT colonoscopy needs to be associated with an initial compliance rate 15-20% better or procedural costs 54% less than colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: To become cost-effective and be able to compete with colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer, CT or MR colonography would need be offered at a very low price or result in compliance rates much better than those associated with colonoscopy.     

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 cost-effectiveness of CT colonography in screening for colorectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND:  We examined the cost-effectiveness of 2- and 3-dimensional computerized tomography (CT) colonography as a screening test for colorectal neoplasia.
METHODS:  We created a Markov model of the natural history of colorectal cancer. Effectiveness of screening was based upon the diagnostic accuracy of tests in detecting polyps and cancer.
RESULTS:  CT colonography every 5 or 10 yr was effective and cost-effective relative to no screening. Optical colonoscopy dominates 2-dimensional CT colonography done every 5 or 10 yr. Optical colonoscopy is weakly dominant over 3-dimensional CT colonography done every 10 yr. 3-D CT colonography done every 5 yr is more effective than optical colonoscopy every 10 yr, but costs an incremental $156,000 per life-year gained. Sensitivity analyses show that test costs, accuracy, and adherence are critical determinants of incremental cost-effectiveness. 3-D CT colonography every 5 yr is a dominant strategy if optical colonoscopy costs 1.6 times more than CT colonography. However, optical colonoscopy is a dominant strategy if the sensitivity of CT colonography for 1 cm adenomas is 83% or lower.
CONCLUSIONS:  CT colonography is an effective screening test for colorectal neoplasia. However, it is more expensive and generally less effective than optical colonoscopy. CT colonography can be reasonably cost-effective when the diagnostic accuracy of CT colonography is high, as with primary 3-dimensional technology, and if costs are about 60% of those of optical colonoscopy. Overall, CT colonography technology will need to improve its accuracy and reliability to be a cost-effective screening option.     

Is gastric cancer a new indication for surveillance colonoscopy? Colon cancer is increased in gastric cancer patients]

BACKGROUND/AIMS: It has been reported that the risk of gastric polyp is increased in various colonic polyposis syndromes or in series of patients with sporadic colonic polyps. However, there are only a few large case controlled studies of colon cancer incidence in gastric cancer patients who underwent colonoscopy. The aims of this study were to determine the incidence of colorectal neoplasm and to evaluate the necessity of colonoscopic surveillance in patients with gastric cancer. METHODS: We performed colonoscopy in 105 patients with gastric cancer who agreed to undergo colonoscopy before or after 6 months from gastric resection between January 2002 and December 2004 in Kangbuk Samsung hospital. As a control group, 269 consecutive, age and sex matched patients without gastric neoplasm on gastroscopy who underwent colonoscopy within 6 months for the evaluation of various gastrointestinal symptoms during the year 2004 were included. Endoscopic reports and pathological results were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: In the patient group, adenomatous polyps were diagnosed in 24/105 patients (22.9%) and colorectal adenocarcinoma in 10/105 patients (9.5%). In the control group, adenomatous polyps were diagnosed in 78/269 patients (29.0%) and colorectal adenocarcinoma in 2/269 patients (0.7%). The incidence of colorectal adenocarcinoma between the patient group and control group showed significant differences (odds ratio 11.04, p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of colorectal adenocarcinoma increases significantly in patients with gastric cancer. We suggest that the patients with gastric cancer might carry a high risk for colorectal cancer whom require surveillance colonoscopy.     

Comparison of virtual colonoscopy with conventional colonoscopy in detection of colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of multidetector computed tomography-based virtual colonoscopy for colorectal polyp detection by using conventional colonoscopy as the reference standard. METHODS: 48 patients with high risk for colorectal cancer underwent virtual colonoscopy followed by conventional colonoscopy. Examination results were compared with conventional colonoscopy, which served as the gold standard. RESULTS: Virtual colonoscopy correctly depicted 19 of 22 polyps (sensitivity, 86%) that were detected in conventional colonoscopy. All 4 polyps that were greater than 10 mm in size (100%), 6 of 7 polyps 6-9 mm in size (85%), and 9 of 11 polyps 5 mm in size or smaller (81%) were correctly depicted with virtual colonoscopy. Virtual colonoscopy had an overall sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 98%. CONCLUSION: Multidetector computed tomography-based virtual colonoscopy has excellent sensitivity for the detection of clinically important colorectal polyps.     

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.     

PET/CT Colonography for the Preoperative Evaluation of the Colon Proximal to the Obstructive Colorectal Cancer

Purpose  This study was designed to evaluate the usefulness of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) colonography in preoperative diagnosis of the tumors proximal to obstructive colorectal cancers, which were defined as cancers that cannot be traversed colonoscopically. Methods  A whole-body PET/CT protocol for tumor staging and a protocol for CT colonography were integrated into one examination. No cathartic bowel preparation was used before this examination. Thirteen prospective patients with obstructive cancer were examined. We compared the detection rates for obstructive colorectal cancers and tumors proximal to the obstruction using air-inflated PET/CT colonography to intraoperative examinations, histopathologic outcome, and follow-up colonoscopy. Results  PET/CT colonography correctly identified all 13 primary obstructive colorectal cancers and all 2 synchronous colon cancers proximal to the obstruction. The two synchronous colon cancers detected at PET/CT colonography were confirmed and removed at single-stage surgical procedures. PET/CT colonography was able to localize all colorectal cancers precisely. There were no false-negative or false-positive proximal colorectal cancers by PET/CT colonography. Other preoperative examinations missed the synchronous colon cancers. Conclusions  In patients with obstructive colorectal cancers, preoperative PET/CT colonography provided valuable anatomic and functional information of the entire colon to properly address surgery of colorectal cancer.