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.

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.

Artificial intelligence-based polyp size measurement in gastrointestinal endoscopy using the auxiliary waterjet as a reference.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of colorectal polyp size during endoscopy is mainly performed visually. In this work, we propose a novel polyp size measurement system (Poseidon) based on artificial intelligence (AI) using the auxiliary waterjet as a measurement reference. METHODS: Visual estimation, biopsy forceps-based estimation, and Poseidon were compared using a computed tomography colonography-based silicone model with 28 polyps of defined sizes. Four experienced gastroenterologists estimated polyp sizes visually and with biopsy forceps. Furthermore, the gastroenterologists recorded images of each polyp with the waterjet in proximity for the application of Poseidon. Additionally, Poseidon's measurements of 29 colorectal polyps during routine clinical practice were compared with visual estimates. RESULTS: In the silicone model, visual estimation had the largest median percentage error of 25.1 % (95 %CI 19.1 %-30.4 %), followed by biopsy forceps-based estimation: median 20.0 % (95 %CI 14.4 %-25.6 %). Poseidon gave a significantly lower median percentage error of 7.4 % (95 %CI 5.0 %-9.4 %) compared with other methods. During routine colonoscopies, Poseidon presented a significantly lower median percentage error (7.7 %, 95 %CI 6.1 %-9.3 %) than visual estimation (22.1 %, 95 %CI 15.1 %-26.9 %). CONCLUSION: In this work, we present a novel AI-based method for measuring colorectal polyp size with significantly higher accuracy than other common sizing methods.

Determination of the positional relationship of the second Houston valve and peritoneal reflection using computed tomographic colonography and magnetic resonance imaging.

PURPOSE: The second Houston valve is used as a surrogate for estimating the position of the peritoneal reflection; however, the concordance between the positions of the valve and peritoneal reflection has not been investigated. This study aimed to clarify this positional relationship. METHODS: The second Houston valve and peritoneal reflection positions were assessed using tomographic colonography and magnetic resonance imaging. In total, 117 patients were enrolled in this study. RESULTS: The positions of the second Houston valve and peritoneal reflection were nearly concordant, although the space between them ranged from - 20.7 to 33.9 mm. A peritoneal reflection located further from the anal verge than the second Houston valve was defined as a shallow peritoneal reflection. Male sex, high body weight, and a high body mass index were significantly correlated with a shallower peritoneal reflection, as determined by a univariate analysis (sex: P = 0.0138, weight: P = 0.0097, body mass index: P = 0.0311). A multivariate analysis revealed a significantly shallower peritoneal reflection in males than in females (odds ratio: 2.75, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-6.56, P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The second Houston valve located near the peritoneal reflection can be a useful surrogate marker for estimating its position. In relatively heavy males, the peritoneal reflection is located more cranially than the second Houston valve.

Assessment of Circulating Tumor Cells in Colorectal Cancer as an Adjunctive Non-invasive Diagnostic Method.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant contributor to cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Biopsy remains the gold standard for CRC diagnosis, but invasive testing may not be preferred as an initial diagnostic procedure. Therefore, alternative non-invasive approaches are needed. Circulating tumor cells (CTC) present in the bloodstream have great potential as a non-invasive diagnostic marker for CRC patients. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic potential of CTC in CRC as an adjunctive diagnostic method using a subjective manual identification method and laser capture microdissection at 40x magnification. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on adult patients suspected to have CRC at Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, Jakarta, between November 2020 and March 2021. CTC analysis was performed using the negative selection immunomagnetic method with Easysep™ and the CD44 mesenchymal tumor marker. The identification and quantification of CTC were conducted manually and subjectively, with three repetitions of cell counting per field of view at 40x magnification. RESULTS: Of 80 subjects, 77.5% were diagnosed with CRC, while 7.5% and 15% exhibited adenomatous polyps and inflammatory/hyperplastic polyps, respectively. The diagnostic analysis of CTC for detecting CRC (compared to polyps) using a CTC cutoff point of >1.5 cells/mL suggested sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 50%, 88.89%, and 93.94%. Additionally, the negative predictive value (NPV), as well as the positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR) were 34.04%, 4.5, and 0.56, respectively. The subjective manual identification and quantification of CTC were performed at 40x magnification using laser capture microdissection. CONCLUSION: This study assessed the diagnostic potential of CTC examination in CRC as an adjunctive diagnostic method using the subjective manual identification method and laser capture microdissection at 40x magnification. Despite the limitations associated with subjective cell counting, the results showed 50% sensitivity and 88.89% specificity in diagnosing CRC. Further studies are needed to optimize the manual identification process and validate the clinical utility of CTC analysis in CRC patients.

Colorectal Cancer: Performance and Evaluation for CT Colonography Screening- A Multicenter Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial.

Background Most radiologists reporting CT colonography (CTC) do not undergo compulsory performance accreditation, potentially lowering diagnostic sensitivity. Purpose To determine whether 1-day individualized training in CTC reporting improves diagnostic sensitivity of experienced radiologists for 6-mm or larger lesions, the durability of any improvement, and any associated factors. Materials and Methods This prospective, multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial was performed in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales between April 2017 and January 2020. CTC services were cluster randomized into intervention (1-day training plus feedback) or control (no training or feedback) arms. Radiologists in the intervention arm attended a 1-day workshop focusing on CTC reporting pitfalls with individualized feedback. Radiologists in the control group received no training. Sensitivity for 6-mm or larger lesions was tested at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months thereafter via interpretation of 10 CTC scans at each time point. The primary outcome was the mean difference in per-lesion sensitivity between arms at 1 month, analyzed using multilevel regression after adjustment for baseline sensitivity. Secondary outcomes included per-lesion sensitivity at 6- and 12-month follow-up, sensitivity for flat neoplasia, and effect of prior CTC experience. Results A total of 69 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention (31 clusters, 80 radiologists) or control (38 clusters, 59 radiologists) arm. Radiologists were experienced (median, 500-999 CTC scans interpreted) and reported CTC scans routinely (median, 151-200 scans per year). One-month sensitivity improved after intervention (66.4% [659 of 992]) compared with sensitivity in the control group (42.4% [278 of 655]; difference = 20.8%; 95% CI: 14.6, 27.0; P < .001). Improvements were maintained at 6 (66.4% [572 of 861] vs 50.5% [283 of 560]; difference = 13.0%; 95% CI: 7.4, 18.5; P < .001) and 12 (63.7% [310 of 487] vs 44.4% [187 of 421]; difference = 16.7%; 95% CI: 10.3, 23.1; P < .001) months. This beneficial effect applied to flat lesions (difference = 22.7%; 95% CI: 15.5, 29.9; P < .001) and was independent of career experience (≥1500 CTC scans: odds ratio = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.36; P = .22). Conclusion For radiologists evaluating CT colonography studies, a 1-day training intervention yielded sustained improvement in detection of clinically relevant colorectal neoplasia, independent of previous career experience. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02892721 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Pickhardt in this issue. An earlier incorrect version appeared online and in print. This article was corrected on February 28, 2022.

Comparison of the performance of conventional and spectral-based tagged stool cleansing algorithms at CT colonography.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of conventional versus spectral-based electronic stool cleansing for iodine-tagged CT colonography (CTC) using a dual-layer spectral detector scanner. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated iodine contrast stool-tagged CTC scans of 30 consecutive patients (mean age: 69 ± 8 years) undergoing colorectal cancer screening obtained on a dual-layer spectral detector CT scanner. One reader identified locations of electronic cleansing artifacts (n = 229) on conventional and spectral cleansed images. Three additional independent readers evaluated these locations using a conventional cleansing algorithm (Intellispace Portal) and two experimental spectral cleansing algorithms (i.e., fully transparent and translucent tagged stool). For each cleansed image set, readers recorded the severity of over- and under-cleansing artifacts on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = none to 4 = severe) and readability compared to uncleansed images. Wilcoxon's signed-rank tests were used to assess artifact severity, type, and readability (worse, unchanged, or better). RESULTS: Compared with conventional cleansing (66% score ≥ 2), the severity of overall cleansing artifacts was lower in transparent (60% score ≥ 2, p = 0.011) and translucent (50% score ≥ 2, p < 0.001) spectral cleansing. Under-cleansing artifact severity was lower in transparent (49% score ≥ 2, p < 0.001) and translucent (39% score ≥ 2, p < 0.001) spectral cleansing compared with conventional cleansing (60% score ≥ 2). Over-cleansing artifact severity was worse in transparent (17% score ≥ 2, p < 0.001) and translucent (14% score ≥ 2, p = 0.023) spectral cleansing compared with conventional cleansing (9% score ≥ 2). Overall readability was significantly improved in transparent (p < 0.001) and translucent (p < 0.001) spectral cleansing compared with conventional cleansing. CONCLUSIONS: Spectral cleansing provided more robust electronic stool cleansing of iodine-tagged stool at CTC than conventional cleansing. KEY POINTS: • Spectral-based electronic cleansing of tagged stool at CT colonography provides higher quality images with less perception of artifacts than does conventional cleansing. • Spectral-based electronic cleansing could potentially advance minimally cathartic approach for CT colonography. Further clinical trials are warranted.

Deep learning in CT colonography: differentiating premalignant from benign colorectal polyps.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the differentiation of premalignant from benign colorectal polyps detected by CT colonography using deep learning. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of an average risk colorectal cancer screening sample, polyps of all size categories and morphologies were manually segmented on supine and prone CT colonography images and classified as premalignant (adenoma) or benign (hyperplastic polyp or regular mucosa) according to histopathology. Two deep learning models SEG and noSEG were trained on 3D CT colonography image subvolumes to predict polyp class, and model SEG was additionally trained with polyp segmentation masks. Diagnostic performance was validated in an independent external multicentre test sample. Predictions were analysed with the visualisation technique Grad-CAM++. RESULTS: The training set consisted of 107 colorectal polyps in 63 patients (mean age: 63 ± 8 years, 40 men) comprising 169 polyp segmentations. The external test set included 77 polyps in 59 patients comprising 118 polyp segmentations. Model SEG achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.83 and 80% sensitivity at 69% specificity for differentiating premalignant from benign polyps. Model noSEG yielded a ROC-AUC of 0.75, 80% sensitivity at 44% specificity, and an average Grad-CAM++ heatmap score of ≥ 0.25 in 90% of polyp tissue. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept study, deep learning enabled the differentiation of premalignant from benign colorectal polyps detected with CT colonography and the visualisation of image regions important for predictions. The approach did not require polyp segmentation and thus has the potential to facilitate the identification of high-risk polyps as an automated second reader. KEY POINTS: • Non-invasive deep learning image analysis may differentiate premalignant from benign colorectal polyps found in CT colonography scans. • Deep learning autonomously learned to focus on polyp tissue for predictions without the need for prior polyp segmentation by experts. • Deep learning potentially improves the diagnostic accuracy of CT colonography in colorectal cancer screening by allowing for a more precise selection of patients who would benefit from endoscopic polypectomy, especially for patients with polyps of 6-9 mm size.

Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Studies reported various diagnostic value of radiologic imaging modalities for diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer (CRC). AIMS: To summary the diagnosis and management of CRC using computed tomography colonography (CTC), magnetic resonance colonography (MRC), and positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library for studies published before April 2021. The diagnostic performance of CTC, MRC, and PET/CT for CRC was summarized. RESULTS: A total of 54 studies (17 studies for CTC, 8 studies for MRC, and 29 studies for PET/CT) were selected for final analysis. The sensitivity and specificity for CTC ranged from 27 to 100%, 88 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for CTC were 0.97 (95% CI 0.88-0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-1.00). The sensitivity and specificity for MRC ranged from 48 to 100%, 60 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRC were 0.98 (95% C: 0.77-1.00) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.84-0.98). The sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT ranged from 84 to 100%, 33 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.97). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CTC, MRC, and PET/CT was 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00), 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), and 0.97 (0.95% CI 0.95-0.98), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested both CTC and MRC with relative higher diagnostic value for diagnosing CRC, while PET/CT with higher diagnostic value in detecting local recurrence for patients with CRC.

Are we underutilising computer tomography colonography in Australia?

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a safe and accurate tool for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. CTC requires dedicated radiological expertise and demonstrates a high sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection, which is similar to optical colonoscopy (OC). Newer preparation techniques for CTC, such as faecal tagging without catharsis might further improve both the tolerability and accuracy of the test. While exposure to ionising radiation, lack of capacity for therapeutic intervention and potentially diminished sensitivity for flat serrated polyps are limitations of CTC, the technique has a role in select populations. CTC should be considered in frail or elderly patients at high anaesthetic risk for OC, patients with stricturing colonic lesions as well as incomplete colonoscopy, or in patients at risk of delayed access to timely OC. With an ever-growing demand for endoscopic services, increased utilisation of CTC could reduce waiting times for colonoscopy, thereby broadening access to timely and effective CRC screening. Further research is required to improve further the detection of flat lesions, including sessile serrated polyps.

Computed tomographic colonography versus double-contrast barium enema for the preoperative evaluation of rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether or not computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a viable alternative to double-contrast barium enema (BE) for a preoperative rectal cancer evaluation. METHODS: The size and distance from the anal canal to the lower or upper tumor borders were laterally measured in 147 patients who underwent CTC and BE. Measurements were grouped into early cancer, advanced, and after chemoradiation therapy (CRT). RESULTS: In the early and advanced cancer groups, all lesions were visualized by BE. In contrast, 3 (7.8%) early and 8 (7.3%) advanced cases, located at the anterior wall near the anal canal, were not visualized by CTC because of liquid level formation. In the CRT group, 16 (23.5%) and 4 (5.8%) cases were not visualized by CTC and BE, respectively. The BE and CTC size measurements were similar among cohorts. However, the distance from the anal canal's superior margin tended to be longer with BE, especially in early cancer. The differences in distance from the anal canal were significantly larger in the early cancer group than in the other two groups (p = 0.0024). CONCLUSION: CTC may be a viable alternative imaging modality in some cases. However, BE should be employed in anterior wall cases near the anal canal and CRT cases.

An AI-Based Colonic Polyp Classifier for Colorectal Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Abdominal CT.

Among the non-invasive Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening approaches, Computed Tomography Colonography (CTC) and Virtual Colonoscopy (VC), are much more accurate. This work proposes an AI-based polyp detection framework for virtual colonoscopy (VC). Two main steps are addressed in this work: automatic segmentation to isolate the colon region from its background, and automatic polyp detection. Moreover, we evaluate the performance of the proposed framework on low-dose Computed Tomography (CT) scans. We build on our visualization approach, Fly-In (FI), which provides "filet"-like projections of the internal surface of the colon. The performance of the Fly-In approach confirms its ability with helping gastroenterologists, and it holds a great promise for combating CRC. In this work, these 2D projections of FI are fused with the 3D colon representation to generate new synthetic images. The synthetic images are used to train a RetinaNet model to detect polyps. The trained model has a 94% f1-score and 97% sensitivity. Furthermore, we study the effect of dose variation in CT scans on the performance of the the FI approach in polyp visualization. A simulation platform is developed for CTC visualization using FI, for regular CTC and low-dose CTC. This is accomplished using a novel AI restoration algorithm that enhances the Low-Dose CT images so that a 3D colon can be successfully reconstructed and visualized using the FI approach. Three senior board-certified radiologists evaluated the framework for the peak voltages of 30 KV, and the average relative sensitivities of the platform were 92%, whereas the 60 KV peak voltage produced average relative sensitivities of 99.5%.

Multicentre randomised controlled trial on virtual chromoendoscopy in the detection of neoplasia during colitis surveillance high-definition colonoscopy (the VIRTUOSO trial).

BACKGROUND: Longstanding colonic IBD increases the risk of developing colorectal cancer. The utility of chromoendoscopy with standard-definition white light technology has been established. However, the use of high-definition virtual chromoendoscopy (HDV) in colitis surveillance remains undefined. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of HDV (i-scan OE mode 2) with high-definition white light (HDWL) for detection of neoplasia in patients with IBD undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. Additionally, we assessed the utility of protocol-guided quadrantic non-targeted biopsies. DESIGN: A multioperator randomised controlled trial was carried out in two centres in the UK. Total of 188 patients (101 men, mean age 54) with longstanding ulcerative or Crohn's colitis were randomised, prior to starting the surveillance colonoscopy, to using either HDV (n=94) or HDWL (n=94) on withdrawal. Targeted and quadrantic non-targeted biopsies were taken in both arms per-randomisation protocol. The primary outcome was the difference in neoplasia detection rate (NDR) between HDV and HDWL. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between HDWL and HDV for neoplasia detection. The NDR was not significantly different for HDWL (24.2%) and HDV (14.9%) (p=0.14). All intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN) detected contained low-grade dysplasia only. A total of 6751 non-targeted biopsies detected one IEN only. The withdrawal time was similar in both arms of the study; median of 24 min (HDWL) versus 25.5 min (HDV). CONCLUSION: HDV and HDWL did not differ significantly in the detection of neoplasia. Almost all neoplasia were detected on targeted biopsy or resection. Quadrantic non-targeted biopsies have negligible additional gain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical Trial.gov ID NCT02822352.

Meeting the new joint British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology and Royal College of Radiologists CT colonography standards: a 6-year experience.

AIM: To audit the performance of computed tomography colonography (CTC) at St Mark's Hospital against the joint British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (BSGAR) and Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective audit of all CTC studies between January 2012 to December 2017 was performed against the BSGAR/RCR standards along with additional data outwith the guidelines. Evidence was obtained from a central database, radiology information systems (RISs), picture archiving and communication systems (PACSs), and electronic patient records (EPRs). RESULTS: Over the 6 years, 13,143 CTCs were performed and 12,996 (99%) were adequate or better. Of the cases 1,867 had a >6 mm polyp or cancer reported (polyp identification rate [PIR] 14%) and the positive predictive value (PPV) was 93% (1,148/1,240). Median radiation dose was 458 mGy·cm, mean additional acquisition rate was 19% (2,505/13,143), subsequent endoscopy rate was 9% (1,222/13,143) and mean interpretation time for a negative study was 34.6 minutes. Nine perforations occurred (perforation rate of 0.068%) and one was symptomatic (symptomatic perforation rate of 0.008%). For suspected cancers, the same-day endoscopy rate was 27% (96/360) and same-day staging rate was 76% (272/360). Post-imaging colorectal cancer rates (PICRC) was 3.06 per 100 cancers detected and 0.23 per 1,000 CTCs. The service was always rated "good" or higher by patients. CONCLUSION: This audit shows the CTC service at St Mark's Hospital to be safe and of sufficiently high quality to meet the BSGAR/RCR standards with most outcomes equal to or above the aspirational target. Areas for service and individual reader improvement were also identified.

Improving practice in radiology: a quality-improvement project examining CT colonography patient dose and scanning technique.

AIM: To audit scanning technique and patient doses for computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) examinations in a large UK region and to identify opportunities for quality improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Scanning technique and patient dose data were gathered for both contrast-enhanced and unenhanced CTC examinations from 33 imaging protocols across 27 scanners. Measurements of patient weight and effective diameter were also obtained. Imaging protocols were compared to identify technique differences between similar scanners. Scanner average doses were calculated and combined to generate regional diagnostic reference limits (DRLs) for both examinations. RESULTS: The regional DRLs for contrast-enhanced examinations were volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of 11 and 5 mGy for the two scan phases (contrast-enhanced and either delayed phase or non-contrast enhanced respectively), and dose-length product (DLP) of 740 mGy·cm. For unenhanced examinations, these were 5 mGy and 450 mGy·cm. These are notably lower than the national DRLs of 11 mGy and 950 mGy·cm. Substantial differences in scan technique and doses on similar scanners were identified as areas for quality-improvement action. CONCLUSION: A regional CTC dose audit has demonstrated compliance with national DRLs but marked variation in practice between sites for the dose delivered to patients, notably when scanners of the same type were compared for the same indication. This study demonstrates that the national DRL is too high for current scanner technology and should be revised.

Efficacy of CO2 Infusion for Preoperative Computed Tomographic Angiography with Computed Tomographic Colonography.

BACKGROUND Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is useful for patients for whom colonoscopy may be difficult to perform and is widely employed to examine the vasculature prior to colorectal cancer surgery. Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) was shown to be beneficial intraoperatively to manipulate blood vessels and prevent vascular injury. Three-dimensional (3D)-CTA combined with CTC (3D-CTA with CTC) is useful for preoperative evaluations of the anatomy of mesenteric vessels, colon, and lymph nodes. We observed that when the intestine was dilated with carbon dioxide (CO2), the arteriovenous delineation was often more pronounced than without CO2. To clarify the effects of gas injection with and without CO2 on hemodynamics and vascular passage, we compared the effect of contrast for blood vessels. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty patients with resectable colorectal cancer who underwent a preoperative CT examination at our institution from January to October 2019 were study participants. Of these, 15 underwent 3D-CTA and 15 had 3D-CTA with CTC. Three board-certified radiologists independently and blindly evaluated 18 blood vessels. CT values for each blood vessel were measured on each image. RESULTS CT values for 3D-CTA with CTC were significantly higher with CO2 than without CO2. The quality of 3D-CTA with CTC images for visualization of blood vessels was also significantly greater than that of 3D-CTA, especially those of arterial and intramesenteric venous systems. CONCLUSIONS Based on the higher image quality and CT values obtained by 3D-CTA with CTC for vessels, compared with by 3D-CTA imaging, 3D-CTA with CTC imaging might be useful in evaluating colorectal cancers.

CT reconstruction with thick slices not only underestimates lymph node size but also reduces data reproducibility in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Reliable size measurement of lymph node (LN) metastases is important for the evaluation of cancer treatment. However, image analyses without proper settings may result in inappropriate diagnoses and staging. PURPOSE: To investigate whether reconstruction slice thickness in computed tomography (CT) affects measurements of LN size and reproducibility. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed 48 patients with histological diagnoses of sigmoid colon and rectal cancer who underwent contrast-enhanced CT colonography as part of a surgical treatment preparation. A board-certified radiologist selected 106 LNs whose short-axis diameter was ≥5 mm on 1-mm-thick images; the short-axis diameters were measured on 1- and 5-mm-thick images by the radiologist and residents and compared using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. Data variation and reproducibility were evaluated using the F test and Bland-Altman analysis. P<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Short-axis diameters measured on 5-mm-thick images were significantly lower than those measured on 1-mm-thick images (P<0.01), even in the LNs whose short-axis diameters were over twice the slice thickness (P<0.05). Of the 106 LNs, 57 showed short-axis diameter <5 mm on 5-mm-thick images; the maximum short-axis diameter was 6.7 mm on a 1-mm thick image. Data variation was significantly larger on 5-mm thick images than 1-mm-thick images in small LNs (P<0.05) and reproducibility on 5-mm-thick images was inferior to that on 1-mm-thick images. CONCLUSION: Thick reconstruction slices in CT can result in an underestimation of LN size and reduce data reproducibility. When measuring LN size, a thin reconstruction slice would be recommended based on targeted LN size.

Improved Sensitivity and Reader Confidence in CT Colonography Using Dual-Layer Spectral CT: A Phantom Study.

Background Limited cathartic preparations for CT colonography with fecal tagging can improve patient comfort but may result in nondiagnostic examinations from poorly tagged stool. Dual-energy CT may overcome this limitation by improving the conspicuity of the contrast agent, but more data are needed. Purpose To investigate whether dual-energy CT improves polyp detection in CT colonography compared with conventional CT at different fecal tagging levels in vitro. Materials and Methods In this HIPAA-compliant study, between December 2017 and August 2019, a colon phantom 30 cm in diameter containing 60 polyps of different shapes (spherical, ellipsoid, flat) and size groups (5-9 mm, 11-15 mm) was constructed and serially filled with simulated feces tagged with four different iodine concentrations (1.26, 2.45, 4.88, and 21.00 mg of iodine per milliliter), then it was scanned with dual-energy CT with and without an outer fat ring to simulate large body size (total diameter, 42 cm). Two readers independently reviewed conventional 120-kVp CT and 40-keV monoenergetic dual-energy CT images to record the presence of polyps and confidence (three-point scale.) Generalized estimating equations were used for sensitivity comparisons between conventional CT and dual-energy CT, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for reader confidence. Results Dual-energy CT had higher overall sensitivity for polyp detection than conventional CT (58.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 49.7%, 67.3%; 564 of 960 polyps vs 42.1%; 95% CI: 32.1%, 52.8%; 404 of 960 polyps; P < .001), including with the fat ring (48% and 31%, P < .001). Reader confidence improved with dual-energy CT compared with conventional images on all tagging levels (P < .001). Interrater agreement was substantial (κ = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.77). Conclusion Compared with conventional 120-kVp CT, dual-energy CT improved polyp detection and reader confidence in a dedicated dual-energy CT colonography phantom, especially with suboptimal fecal tagging. © RSNA, 2020.

Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in FIT-positive colorectal cancer screening subjects: a prospective randomised trial-the VICOCA study.

BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) are minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Our objective is to compare CCE and CTC for the identification of patients with colorectal neoplasia among participants in a CRC screening programme with positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Primary outcome was to compare the performance of CCE and CTC in detecting patients with neoplastic lesions. METHODS: The VICOCA study is a prospective, single-centre, randomised trial conducted from March 2014 to May 2016; 662 individuals were invited and 349 were randomised to CCE or CTC before colonoscopy. Endoscopists were blinded to the results of CCE and CTC. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-nine individuals were included: 173 in the CCE group and 176 in the CTC group. Two hundred ninety individuals agreed to participate: 147 in the CCE group and 143 in the CTC group. In the intention-to-screen analysis, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for the identification of individuals with colorectal neoplasia were 98.1%, 76.6%, 93.7% and 92.0% in the CCE group and 64.9%, 95.7%, 96.8% and 57.7% in the CTC group. In terms of detecting significant neoplastic lesions, the sensitivity of CCE and CTC was 96.1% and 79.3%, respectively. Detection rate for advanced colorectal neoplasm was higher in the CCE group than in the CTC group (100% and 93.1%, respectively; RR = 1.07; p = 0.08). Both CCE and CTC identified all patients with cancer. CCE detected more patients with any lesion than CTC (98.6% and 81.0%, respectively; RR = 1.22; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Although both techniques seem to be similar in detecting patients with advanced colorectal neoplasms, CCE is more sensitive for the detection of any neoplastic lesion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02081742 . Registered: September 16, 2013.

Performance of CT Colonography in Diagnosis of Synchronous Colonic Lesions in Patients With Occlusive Colorectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CT colonography (CTC) in the diagnosis of synchronous colonic lesions in a cohort of patients with an occlusive colorectal cancer (CRC) causing incomplete colonoscopy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Among 109 patients with CRC causing incomplete colonoscopy who underwent CTC with IV contrast enhancement after cathartic purgation, fecal tagging, and colon distention, 70 (mean age, 70 years) for whom reference standards (surgical reports, first surveillance colonoscopy) were available were evaluated. Per-patient and per-lesion sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of CTC in the diagnosis of synchronous colonic lesions measuring 6 mm or larger were assessed. RESULTS. Twenty-seven of the 70 patients (39%) had at least one 6-mm or larger synchronous lesion, and four patients (6%) had a total of five synchronous CRCs. Per-patient sensitivity in diagnosing synchronous CRC was 1.00 (4/4). There were 59 lesions: 20 with a diameter of 10 mm or greater; 30, 6-9 mm; and nine, 5 mm or less. The overall per-patient CTC sensitivity in detecting synchronous lesions 6 mm or larger was 0.93 (25/27); specificity, 0.98 (42/43); PPV, 0.96; and NPV, 0.95. Per-patient sensitivity for the diagnosis of synchronous advanced neoplasia (advanced adenoma and colorectal cancers) was 0.94 (15/16). Per-lesion CTC sensitivity for detecting synchronous lesions 6 mm or larger was 0.88 (37/42); all adenomatous lesions, 0.89 (55/62); and advanced neoplasia, 0.92 (22/24). CONCLUSION. CTC is a highly accurate test for detecting synchronous colonic lesions in patients with occlusive CRC. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia is high (23%).