[Colorectal cancer screening with virtual colonography]. / Screening des Kolonkarzinoms mit virtueller Kolographie.

BACKGROUND: Since 2003, a decline in the age-standardized incidence rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been observed in Germany. Nonetheless, one in eight cancer cases still affects the colon or rectum. The prognosis has improved, with the relative 5­year survival rate for CRC being approximately 65%. METHODS: This positive trend is probably a result of preventive measures introduced over the last 20 years. This could be further improved, however, as CRC can not only be detected early but in almost all cases also prevented through the identification of benign precursors. Less than half of all eligible individuals participate in screening via colonoscopy. This implies that further, possibly even imaging, screening test methods should be explored and offered. Studies have reported that virtual colonography techniques have a comparable accuracy to endoscopy of about 90% for polyp sizes larger than 5 mm. The data for computed tomography (CT) is more extensive than for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). CONCLUSION: Significant challenges are posed however by the fact that in Germany CT colonography (CTC) is not considered a viable screening option due to radiation protection concerns, and MRI screening is not an established screening method. Radiologists should be familiar with classification using the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS), which uses criteria such as CT density, morphology, size, and location for classification. C­RADS classification follows the categories: C0 (inadequate study), C1 (normal), C2a (indeterminate), C2b (benign), C3 (suspicious), and C4 (malignant), as well as extracolonic categories E1/2 (no clinically significant findings), E3 (likely insignificant findings), and E4 (likely significant findings).

Trends in Colorectal Cancer Screening from the National Health Interview Survey: Analysis of the Impact of Different Modalities on Overall Screening Rates.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in adults in the United States. Despite compelling evidence of improved outcomes in colorectal cancer, screening rates are not optimal. This study aimed to characterize colorectal cancer screening trends over the last two decades and assess the impact of various screening modalities on overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Using National Health Interview Survey data from 2005 to 2021, we examined colorectal cancer screening [colonoscopy, multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal occult blood test (FOBT)/fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography] rates among adults ages 50-75 years (n = 85,571). A pseudo-time-series cross-sectional (pseudo-TSCS) analysis was conducted including a random effects generalized least squares regression model to estimate the relative impact of each modality on changes in colorectal cancer screening rates. Among 50 to 75 year olds, the estimated colorectal cancer screening rate increased from 47.7% in 2005 to 69.9% in 2021, with the largest increase between 2005 and 2010 (47.7%-60.7%). Rates subsequently plateaued until 2015 but increased from 63.5% in 2015 to 69.9% in 2018. This was primarily driven by the increased use of mt-sDNA (2.5% in 2018 to 6.6% in 2021). Pseudo-TSCS analysis results showed that mt-sDNA contributed substantially to the increase in overall screening rates (77.3%; P < 0.0001) between 2018 and 2021. While colorectal cancer screening rates increased from 2005 to 2021, they remain below the 80% goal. The introduction of mt-sDNA, a noninvasive screening test may have improved overall rates. Sustained efforts are required to further increase screening rates to improve patient outcomes and offering a range of screening options is likely to contribute to achieving this goal. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This retrospective study highlights the importance of convenient stool-based colorectal cancer screening options to achieve the national goal of 80% for overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Empowering screening-eligible individuals with a choice for their colorectal cancer screening tests is imperative.

Bowel Preparation Burden, Rectal Pain and Abdominal Discomfort: Perspective of Participants Undergoing CT Colonography and Colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate bowel preparation burden, rectal pain and abdominal discomfort levels and to determine the association between demographic characteristics and those levels among participants undergoing CT colonography and colonoscopy. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in eligible Thai citizens who consented to participate all four visits of a free colorectal cancer screening protocol. Three levels (mild, moderate and severe) of burden, pain and discomfort were used to ask the perspective of participants at the final visit, one week after undergoing those two procedures. RESULTS: Data from 1,271 participants completed for analyses - females 815 (64.1%), males 456 (35.9%). The majority of participants experienced mild burden, pain and discomfort. Association between characteristic groups and burden levels differed regarding own income, chronic disease and laxative. Between characteristic groups and pain and discomfort levels differed regarding own income and chronic disease. Participants without their own income rated severe burden lower than those who had (p<0.001), but those without chronic disease rated moderate burden lower than who had (p=0.003). Participants prepared bowel with spilt-dose of PEG rated moderate burden higher than those who prepared with NaP (p<0.001). Participants undergoing CT colonography without their own income and presenting no chronic disease faced severe rectal pain lower than those who had (p<0.001 and p=0.04). Participants without their own income rated moderate and severe abdominal discomfort lower than those who had (p<0.01 and p=0.008). Participants undergoing colonoscopy without their own income and no chronic diseases faced severe rectal pain lower than those who had (p<0.001 and p=0.007). Participants without their own income and no chronic disease rated severe abdominal discomfort lower than those who had (p<0.001 and p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Evaluating the perspectives of customers alongside quality improvement and innovation to reduce unpleasant experiences remains needed in CT colonography and colonoscopy to promote CRC screening.

Natural History of Colorectal Polyps Undergoing Longitudinal in Vivo CT Colonography Surveillance.

Background The natural history of colorectal polyps is not well characterized due to clinical standards of care and other practical constraints limiting in vivo longitudinal surveillance. Established CT colonography (CTC) clinical screening protocols allow surveillance of small (6-9 mm) polyps. Purpose To assess the natural history of colorectal polyps followed with CTC in a clinical screening program, with histopathologic correlation for resected polyps. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, CTC was used to longitudinally monitor small colorectal polyps in asymptomatic adult patients from April 1, 2004, to August 31, 2020. All patients underwent at least two CTC examinations. Polyp growth patterns across multiple time points were analyzed, with histopathologic context for resected polyps. Regression analysis was performed to evaluate predictors of advanced histopathology. Results In this study of 475 asymptomatic adult patients (mean age, 56.9 years ± 6.7 [SD]; 263 men), 639 unique polyps (mean initial diameter, 6.3 mm; volume, 50.2 mm3) were followed for a mean of 5.1 years ± 2.9. Of these 639 polyps, 398 (62.3%) underwent resection and histopathologic evaluation, and 41 (6.4%) proved to be histopathologically advanced (adenocarcinoma, high-grade dysplasia, or villous content), including two cancers and 38 tubulovillous adenomas. Advanced polyps showed mean volume growth of +178% per year (752% per year for adenocarcinomas) compared with +33% per year for nonadvanced polyps and -3% per year for unresected, unretrieved, or resolved polyps (P < .001). In addition, 90% of histologically advanced polyps achieved a volume of 100 mm3 and/or volume growth rate of 100% per year, compared with 29% of nonadvanced and 16% of unresected or resolved polyps (P < .001). Polyp volume-to-diameter ratio was also significantly greater for advanced polyps. For polyps observed at three or more time points, most advanced polyps demonstrated an initial slower growth interval, followed by a period of more rapid growth. Conclusion Small colorectal polyps ultimately proving to be histopathologically advanced neoplasms demonstrated substantially faster growth and attained greater overall size compared with nonadvanced polyps. Clinical trial registration no. NCT00204867 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Dachman in this issue.

Recent American College of Physicians Guidance Statement for Screening Average-risk, Asymptomatic Adults for Colorectal Cancer.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) update of their standing guidance statement for colorectal-cancer screening in asymptomatic average-risk adults was recently published to assist clinicians with implementing evidence-based patient care. After assessing existing guideline literature, the ACP recommended five actions: consider not screening adults ages 45 to 49 years; stop screening adults older than 75 years; discuss benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient values/preferences with patients prior to choosing a screening method; and when choosing, recommend biennial rather than annual use of a fecal immunochemical test or a guaiac fecal occult blood test and avoid recommending computed tomography colonography or stool DNA tests. While the ACP guidelines are rigorous, well-intended, and considerate of patients' input, their greatest impact may result from highlighting the need for researchers to help frontline clinicians to describe the risk, costs, and benefits/harms of various colorectal-cancer screening strategies in an effective, yet time-efficient, manner given the all-too-brief annual patient encounters. In the United States, reimbursement is still dependent on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations which are somewhat more liberal in contrast to the ACP's approach which strongly favors randomized, controlled trial evidence to guide the delivery of prevention and screening services to asymptomatic average-risk patients.

Prognostic impact of extramural venous invasion detected by contrast-enhanced CT colonography in colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: The impact of computed tomography (CT)-detected extramural venous invasion on the recurrence of colon cancer is not fully understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical significance of extramural venous invasion diagnosed before surgery by contrast-enhanced CT colonography using three-dimensional multiplanar reconstruction images. METHODS: Patients with colon cancer staged greater than or equal to T2 and/or stage I-III who underwent contrast-enhanced CT colonography between 2013 and 2018 at the National Cancer Center Hospital in Japan were retrospectively investigated for CT-detected extramural venous invasion. Inter-observer agreement for the detection of CT-detected extramural venous invasion was evaluated and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted for recurrence-free survival using CT-TNM staging and CT-detected extramural venous invasion. Preoperative clinical variables were analysed using Cox regression for recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: Out of 922 eligible patients, 544 cases were analysed (50 (9.2 per cent) were diagnosed as positive for CT-detected extramural venous invasion and 494 (90.8 per cent) were diagnosed as negative for CT-detected extramural venous invasion). The inter-observer agreement for CT-detected extramural venous invasion had a κ coefficient of 0.830. The group positive for CT-detected extramural venous invasion had a median follow-up of 62.1 months, whereas the group negative for CT-detected extramural venous invasion had a median follow-up of 60.7 months. When CT-TNM stage was stratified according to CT-detected extramural venous invasion status, CT-T3 N(-)extramural venous invasion(+) had a poor prognosis compared with CT-T3 N(-)extramural venous invasion(-) and CT-stage I (5-year recurrence-free survival of 50.6 versus 89.3 and 90.1 per cent respectively; P < 0.001). In CT-stage III, the group positive for CT-detected extramural venous invasion also had a poor prognosis compared with the group negative for CT-detected extramural venous invasion (5-year recurrence-free survival of 52.0 versus 78.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.003). Multivariable analysis revealed that recurrence was associated with CT-T4 (HR 3.10, 95 per cent c.i. 1.85 to 5.20; P < 0.001) and CT-detected extramural venous invasion (HR 3.08, 95 per cent c.i. 1.90 to 5.00; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CT-detected extramural venous invasion was found to be an independent predictor of recurrence and could be used in combination with preoperative TNM staging to identify patients at high risk of recurrence.

CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS): Version 2023 Update.

The CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS) has withstood the test of time and proven to be a robust classification scheme for CT colonography (CTC) findings. C-RADS version 2023 represents an update on the scheme used for colorectal and extracolonic findings at CTC. The update provides useful insights gained since the implementation of the original system in 2005. Increased experience has demonstrated confusion on how to classify the mass-like appearance of the colon consisting of soft tissue attenuation that occurs in segments with acute or chronic diverticulitis. Therefore, the update introduces a new subcategory, C2b, specifically for mass-like diverticular strictures, which are likely benign. Additionally, the update simplifies extracolonic classification by combining E1 and E2 categories into an updated extracolonic category of E1/E2 since, irrespective of whether a finding is considered a normal variant (category E1) or an otherwise clinically unimportant finding (category E2), no additional follow-up is required. This simplifies and streamlines the classification into one category, which results in the same management recommendation.

Sociodemographic Factors and Screening CT Colonography Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND. Approximately one-third of the eligible U.S. population have not undergone guideline-compliant colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Guidelines recognize various screening strategies to increase adherence. CMS provides coverage for all recommended screening tests except CT colonography (CTC). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CTC and other CRC screening tests in terms of associations of utilization with income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. METHODS. This retrospective study used CMS Research Identifiable Files from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020. These files contain claims information for 5% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Data were extracted for individuals 45-85 years old, and individuals with high CRC risk were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine the likelihood of undergoing CRC screening tests (as well as of undergoing diagnostic CTC, a CMS-covered test with similar physical access as screening CTC) as a function of income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity while controlling for sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, U.S. census region, screening year, and related conditions and procedures. RESULTS. For 12,273,363 beneficiary years (mean age, 70.5 ± 8.2 [SD] years; 2,436,849 unique beneficiaries: 6,774,837 female beneficiaries, 5,498,526 male beneficiaries), there were 785,103 CRC screenings events, including 645 for screening CTC. Compared with individuals living in communities with per capita income of less than US$25,000, individuals in communities with income of US$100,000 or more had OR for undergoing screening CTC of 5.73, optical colonoscopy (OC) of 1.36, sigmoidoscopy of 1.03, guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test of 1.50, stool DNA of 1.43, and diagnostic CTC of 2.00. The OR for undergoing screening CTC was 1.00 for Hispanic individuals and 1.08 for non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Compared with the OR for undergoing screening CTC for residents of metropolitan areas, the OR was 0.51 for residents of micropolitan areas and 0.65 for residents of small or rural areas. CONCLUSION. The association with income was substantially larger for screening CTC than for other CRC screening tests or for diagnostic CTC. CLINICAL IMPACT. Medicare's noncoverage for screening CTC may contribute to lower adherence with CRC screening guidelines for lower-income beneficiaries. Medicare coverage of CTC could reduce income-based disparities for individuals avoiding OC owing to invasiveness, need for anesthesia, or complication risk.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Practice Guidelines for Computed Tomography Colonography.

Colon cancer is the third most common malignancy in Canada. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) provides a creditable and validated option for colon screening and assessment of known pathology in patients for whom conventional colonoscopy is contraindicated or where patients self-select to use imaging as their primary modality for initial colonic assessment. This updated guideline aims to provide a toolkit for both experienced imagers (and technologists) and for those considering launching this examination in their practice. There is guidance for reporting, optimal exam preparation, tips for problem solving to attain high quality examinations in challenging scenarios as well as suggestions for ongoing maintenance of competence. We also provide insight into the role of artificial intelligence and the utility of CTC in tumour staging of colorectal cancer. The appendices provide more detailed guidance into bowel preparation and reporting templates as well as useful information on polyp stratification and management strategies. Reading this guideline should equip the reader with the knowledge base to perform colonography but also provide an unbiased overview of its role in colon screening compared with other screening options.

Effect of tin spectral filtration on organ and effective dose in CT colonography and CT lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Studies of tin spectral filtration have demonstrated potential in reducing radiation dose while maintaining image quality for unenhanced computed tomography (CT) scans. The extent of dose reduction, however, was commonly measured using the change in the scanner's reported CTDIvol . This method does not account for how tin filtration affects patient organ and effective dose. PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of tin filtration on patient organ and effective dose for CT Lung Cancer Screening (LCS) and CT Colonography (CTC). METHODS: A previously-developed Monte Carlo program was adapted to model a 96-row CT scanner (Somatom Force, Siemens Healthineers) with tin filtration capabilities at 100 kV (100Sn) and 150 kV (150Sn). The program was then validated using experimental CTDIvol measurements at all available kV (70-150 kV) and tin-filtered kV options (100Sn and 150Sn). After validation, the program simulated LCS scans of the chest and CTC scan of the abdomen-pelvis for a population of 53 computational patient models from the extended cardiac-torso family. Each scan was performed using three different spectra: 120 kV, 100Sn, and 150Sn. CTDIvol -normalized organ doses and DLP-normalized effective doses, commonly referred to as dose conversion factors, were compared between the different spectra. RESULTS: For all LCS and CTC scans, CTDIvol -normalized organ doses and DLP-normalized effective doses increased with increasing beam hardness (120 kV, 100Sn, 150 Sn). For LCS, relative for 120 kV, conversion factors for 100Sn produced a median increase in effective dose of 9%, with organ dose increases of 8% to lung, 5% to breast, 15% to thyroid, and 3% to skin. Conversion factors for 150Sn produced a median increase in effective dose of 20%, with organ dose increases of 16%, 18%, 26%, and 12% to these same organs, respectively. For CTC, relative for 120 kV, conversion factors for 100Sn produced a median increase in effective dose of 12%, with organ dose increases of 9% to colon, 10% to liver, 11% to stomach, and 4% to skin. Conversion factors for 150Sn produced a median increase in effective dose of 21%, with organ dose increases of 16%, 17%, 19%, and 10% to these same organs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that dose conversion factors are greater when using tin filtration and should be considered when evaluating tin's potential for dose reduction.

Comparison of Diatrizoate and Iohexol for Patient Acceptance and Fecal-Tagging Performance in Noncathartic CT Colonography.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare diatrizoate and iohexol regarding patient acceptance and fecal-tagging performance in noncathartic computed tomography colonography. METHODS: This study enrolled 284 volunteers with fecal tagging by either diatrizoate or iohexol at an iodine concentration of 13.33 mg/mL and an iodine load of 24 g. Patient acceptance was rated on a 4-point scale of gastrointestinal discomfort. Two gastrointestinal radiologists jointly analyzed image quality, fecal-tagging density and homogeneity, and residual contrast agent in the small intestine. The results were compared by the generalized estimating equation method. RESULTS: Patient acceptance was comparable between the 2 groups (3.95 ± 0.22 vs 3.96 ± 0.20, P = 0.777). The diatrizoate group had less residual fluid and stool than the iohexol group ( P = 0.019, P = 0.004, respectively). There was no significant difference in colorectal distention, residual fluid, and stool tagging quality between the 2 groups (all P 's > 0.05). The mean 2-dimensional image quality score was 4.59 ± 0.68 with diatrizoate and 3.60 ± 1.14 with iohexol ( P < 0.001). The attenuation of tagged feces was 581 ± 66 HU with diatrizoate and 1038 ± 117 HU with iohexol ( P < 0.001). Residual contrast agent in the small intestine was assessed at 55.3% and 62.3% for the diatrizoate group and iohexol group, respectively ( P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with iohexol, diatrizoate had better image quality, proper fecal-tagging density, and more homogeneous tagging along with comparable excellent patient acceptance, and might be more suitable for fecal tagging in noncathartic computed tomography colonography.

Colorectal cancer screening guidelines for average-risk and high-risk individuals: A systematic review.

AIMS: This review aims to summarize the different colorectal cancer guidelines for average-risk and high-risk individuals from various countries. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search regarding guidelines, consensus recommendations, or position statements about colorectal cancer screening published within the last 10 years (1st January 2012 to 27th August 2022), was performed at EBSCOhost, JSTOR, PubMed, ProQuest, SAGE, and ScienceDirect. RESULTS: A total of 18 guidelines were included in this review. Most guidelines recommended screening between 45 and 75 years for average-risk individuals. Recommendations regarding colorectal cancer screening in high-risk individuals were more varied and depended on the risk factor. For high-risk individuals with a positive family history of colorectal cancer or advanced colorectal polyp, screening should begin at age 40. Some frequently suggested screening modalities in order of frequency are colonoscopy, FIT, and CTC. Furthermore, several screening intervals were suggested, including colonoscopy every 10 years for average-risk and every 5-10 years for high-risk individuals, FIT annually in average-risk and every 1-2 years in high-risk individuals, and CTC every five years for all individuals. CONCLUSION: All individuals with average-risk should undergo colorectal cancer screening between 45 and 75. Meanwhile, individuals with higher risks, such as those with a positive family history, should begin screening at age 40. Several recommended screening modalities were suggested, including colonoscopy every 10 years in average-risk and every 5-10 years in high-risk, FIT annually in average-risk and every 1-2 years in high-risk, and CTC every five years.