Paris classification of colonic polyps using CT colonography: prospective cohort study of interobserver variation.

BACKGROUND: The Paris classification categorises colorectal polyp morphology. Interobserver agreement for Paris classification has been assessed at optical colonoscopy (OC) but not CT colonography (CTC). We aimed to determine the following: (1) interobserver agreement for the Paris classification using CTC between radiologists; (2) if radiologist experience influenced classification, gross polyp morphology, or polyp size; and (3) the extent to which radiologist classifications agreed with (a) colonoscopy and (b) a combined reference standard. METHODS: Following ethical approval for this non-randomised prospective cohort study, seven radiologists from three hospitals classified 52 colonic polyps using the Paris system. We calculated interobserver agreement using Fleiss kappa and mean pairwise agreement (MPA). Absolute agreement was calculated between radiologists; between CTC and OC; and between CTC and a combined reference standard using all available imaging, colonoscopic, and histopathological data. RESULTS: Overall interobserver agreement between the seven readers was fair (Fleiss kappa 0.33; 95% CI 0.30-0.37; MPA 49.7%). Readers with < 1500 CTC experience had higher interobserver agreement (0.42 (95% CI 0.35-0.48) vs. 0.33 (95% CI 0.25-0.42)) and MPA (69.2% vs 50.6%) than readers with ≥ 1500 experience. There was substantial overall agreement for flat vs protuberant polyps (0.62 (95% CI 0.56-0.68)) with a MPA of 87.9%. Agreement between CTC and OC classifications was only 44%, and CTC agreement with the combined reference standard was 56%. CONCLUSION: Radiologist agreement when using the Paris classification at CT colonography is low, and radiologist classification agrees poorly with colonoscopy. Using the full Paris classification in routine CTC reporting is of questionable value. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Interobserver agreement for radiologists using the Paris classification to categorise colorectal polyp morphology is only fair; routine use of the full Paris classification at CT colonography is questionable. KEY POINTS: • Overall interobserver agreement for the Paris classification at CT colonography (CTC) was only fair, and lower than for colonoscopy. • Agreement was higher for radiologists with < 1500 CTC experience and for larger polyps. There was substantial agreement when classifying polyps as protuberant vs flat. • Agreement between CTC and colonoscopic polyp classification was low (44%).

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.

Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS): observational case series findings on MR defecography.

OBJECTIVE: Radiological findings in solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) are well described for evacuation proctography (EP) but sparse for magnetic resonance defecography (MRD). In order to rectify this, we describe the spectrum of MRD findings in patients with histologically proven SRUS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRD from twenty-eight patients (18 female; 10 males) with histologically confirmed SRUS were identified. MRD employed a 1.5-T magnet and a standardized technique with the rectal lumen filled with gel and imaged sagittally in the supine position, before, during, and after attempted rectal evacuation. A single radiologist observer with 5 years' experience in pelvic floor imaging made the anatomical and functional measurements. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (10 female) demonstrated internal rectal intussusception and 3 patients (11%) demonstrated complete external rectal prolapse. Anterior rectoceles were noted in 12 female patients (43%). Associated anterior and middle compartment weakness (evidenced by excessive descent) was observed in 18 patients (64%). Cystocele was found in 14 patients (50%) and uterine prolapse was noted in 7 patients (25%). Enterocoeles were detected in 5 patients (18%) and peritoneocoele in 5 patients (18%). None had sigmoidocoele. Sixteen patients (57%) demonstrated delayed voiding and 13 patients (46%) incomplete voiding, suggesting defecatory dyssynergia. CONCLUSION: MRD can identify and grade both rectal intussusception and dyssynergia in SRUS, and also depict associated anterior and/or middle compartment descent. Distinction between structural and functional findings has important therapeutic implications. KEY POINTS: MRD can identify and grade both rectal intussusception and dyssynergia in patients with SRUS. MRD is an acceptable substitute to evacuation proctography in assessing anorectal dysfunctions when attempting to avoid ionizing radiation. SRUS influences the pelvic floor globally. MRD depicts associated anterior and/or middle compartment prolapse.

How to avoid describing your radiological research study incorrectly.

This review identifies and examines terms used to describe a radiological research "study" or "trial". A taxonomy of clinical research descriptions is explained with reference to medical imaging examples. Because many descriptive terms have precise methodological implications, it is important that these terms are understood by readers and used correctly by researchers, so that the reader is not misled. KEY POINTS: • Multiple different terms are being used to describe radiological research "studies" and "trials", and many of these terms have precise methodological implications. • Radiological researchers sometimes use titles that describe their research incorrectly. This can mislead the reader as to what was actually done. • It is important that readers and researchers understand the correct taxonomy of clinical research and that researchers adopt the correct description for their work.

Traditional Serrated Adenomas on CT Colonography: International Multicenter Experience With This Rare Colorectal Neoplasm.

OBJECTIVE. Serrated polyps include hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated polyps, and traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs). Hyperplastic polyps and sessile serrated polyps account for approximately 99% of all serrated lesions; TSAs are rare. However, both sessile serrated polyps and TSAs are now recognized as precursor lesions to carcinogenesis, representing approximately one-fourth of all sporadic colorectal cancers. We report what is, to our knowledge, the first series describing the characteristics of CTAs on CT colonography (CTC). MATERIALS AND METHODS. An international, multicenter, retrospective review of CT colonography-detected TSAs diagnosed between 2008 and 2018 was conducted. Data collected included patient demographics and data from CTC, optical colonoscopy, and pathologic analysis. RESULTS. A total of 67 proven TSAs in 58 patients (mean age, 67 years) were identified. The majority (66%) were located in the distal colon (descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum), and their mean size was 19 mm (range, 3-80 mm). Small (< 10 mm) TSAs typically had a simple sessile or pedunculated morphologic appearance, whereas large (≥ 10 mm) TSAs tended to be more lobulated and irregular, pedunculated, or carpetlike. The majority (88%) showed at least some contrast medium surface coating. CONCLUSION. We report what we believe to be the first multicenter experience describing the characteristics of TSAs on CTC. Unlike sessile serrated lesions, TSAs are more often left-sided and tend to be more lobulated and irregular. However, like sessile serrated polyps, most TSAs show contrast medium surface coating. Detection of these rare lesions on CTC is important, given their malignant potential.

World Endoscopy Organization Consensus Statements on Post-Colonoscopy and Post-Imaging Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)- some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers [PICRCs]). METHODS: A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach. RESULTS: The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon. CONCLUSIONS: A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients.

Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?

OBJECTIVES: To determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan. METHODS: Retrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiology Information System data for CTC examinations from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015. For each examination, we determined how many prior CTCs had been interpreted by the reporting radiologist on that day and how long radiologists spent on interpretation. For each radiologist, we calculated their referral rate (proportion deemed positive for 6 mm+ polyp/cancer), positive predictive value (PPV) and endoscopic/surgically proven polyp detection rate (PDR). We also calculated the mean time each radiologist spent interpreting normal studies ("negative interpretation time"). We used multilevel logistic regression to investigate the relationship between the number of scans reported each day, negative interpretation time and referral rate, PPV and PDR. RESULTS: Five thousand one hundred ninety-one scans were interpreted by seven radiologists; 892 (17.2%) were reported as positive, and 534 (10.3%) had polyps confirmed. Both referral rate and PDR reduced as more CTCs were reported on a given day (p < 0.001), the odds reducing by 7% for each successive CTC interpreted. Radiologists reporting more slowly than their colleagues detected more polyps (p = 0.028), with each 16% increase in interpretation time associated with a 1% increase in PDR. PPV was unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting multiple CTCs on a given day and rapid CTC interpretation are associated with decreased polyp detection. Radiologists should be protected from requirements to report too many CTCs or too quickly. KEY POINTS: • CT colonography services should protect radiologists from a need to report too fast (> 20 min per case) or for too long (> 4 cases consecutively without a break). • Professional bodies should consider introducing a target minimum interpretation time for CT colonography examinations as a quality marker.

Quantified Terminal Ileal Motility during MR Enterography as a Biomarker of Crohn Disease Activity: Prospective Multi-Institution Study.

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of MRI-quantified small bowel motility for Crohn disease activity against endoscopic and histopathologic reference standards. Materials and Methods For this prospective study, 82 participants (median age, 31 years; range, 16 to 70 years; 42 males [median age, 31 years; range, 17 to 70 years] and 40 females [median age, 31 years; range, 16 to 63 years) underwent colonoscopy and MR enterography within 14 days (from October 2011 to March 2014) at two centers. The Crohn disease endoscopic index of severity (CDEIS), histopathologic activity score (endoscopic biopsy acute histologic inflammatory score [EAIS]), and MR index of activity (MaRIA) were scored in the terminal ileum. Terminal ileal motility was quantified by using an image registration based-motility assessment algorithm (hereafter, Motility). Sensitivity and specificity of Motility (˂0.3 arbitrary units) and MaRIA (≥7 and ≥11) for disease activity (CDEIS ≥4 or EAIS ≥1) were compared by using the McNemar test. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed and areas under the curve were compared. Motility was correlated with reference standards by using Spearman rank estimates. Results Terminal ileal Motility was negatively correlated with EAIS (r =-0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7, -0.5) and CDEIS (r = -0.59; 95% CI: 0.7, -0.4). With CDEIS as the standard of reference, Motility had higher sensitivity than did MaRIA (≥11) (93% vs 78%, respectively; P = .03), but lower specificity (61% vs 81%, respectively; P = .04). With EAIS as the standard of reference, Motility had higher sensitivity than did MaRIA (≥7) (92% vs 75%, respectively; P = .03) but similar specificity (71% vs 74%, respectively; P >.99). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for Motility was 0.86 and 0.87 with CDEIS and EAIS as the standard of reference, respectively. Conclusion The terminal ileal Motility score showed good agreement with endoscopic and histopathologic activity in Crohn disease. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Imaging complex ventral hernias, their surgical repair, and their complications.

Complex ventral hernia (CVH) describes large, anterior, ventral hernias. The incidence of CVH is rising rapidly due to increasing laparotomy rates in ever older, obese and co-morbid patients. Surgeons with a specific interest in CVH repair are now frequently referring these patients for imaging, normally computed tomography scanning. This review describes what information is required from preoperative imaging and the surgical options and techniques used for CVH repair, so that radiologists understand the postoperative appearances specific to CVH and are aware of the common complications following surgery. KEY POINTS: • Complex ventral hernia (CVH) describes large abdominal wall hernias (e.g. width ≥10cm). • CVH patients are being referred increasingly for preoperative and postoperative imaging. • Imaging is pivotal to characterise preoperative morphology and quantify loss of domain. • Postoperative imaging appearances are contingent on the surgical methods used for CVH repair. • Postoperative complications are depicted easily by imaging.

Rapid volumetric photoacoustic tomographic imaging with a Fabry-Perot ultrasound sensor depicts peripheral arteries and microvascular vasomotor responses to thermal stimuli.

PURPOSE: To determine if a new photoacoustic imaging (PAI) system successfully depicts (1) peripheral arteries and (2) microvascular circulatory changes in response to thermal stimuli. METHODS: Following ethical permission, 8 consenting subjects underwent PAI of the dorsalis pedis (DP) artery, and 13 completed PAI of the index fingertip. Finger images were obtained after immersion in warm (30-35 °C) or cold (10-15 °C) water to promote vasodilation or vasoconstriction. The PAI instrument used a Fabry-Perot interferometeric ultrasound sensor and a 30-Hz 750-nm pulsed excitation laser. Volumetric images were acquired through a 14 × 14 × 14-mm volume over 90 s. Images were evaluated subjectively and quantitatively to determine if PAI could depict cold-induced vasoconstriction. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of resolvable vessels was measured. RESULTS: Fingertip vessels were visible in all participants, with mean FWHM of 125 µm. Two radiologists used PAI to correctly identify vasoconstricted fingertip capillary beds with 100% accuracy (95% CI 77.2-100.0%, p < 0.001). The number of voxels exhibiting vascular signal was significantly smaller after cold water immersion (cold: 5263 voxels; warm: 363,470 voxels, p < 0.001). The DP artery was visible in 7/8 participants (87.5%). CONCLUSION: PAI achieves rapid, volumetric, high-resolution imaging of peripheral limb vessels and the microvasculature and is responsive to vasomotor changes induced by thermal stimuli. KEY POINTS: • Fabry-Perot interferometer-based photoacoustic imaging (PAI) generates volumetric, high-resolution images of the peripheral vasculature. • The system reliably detects thermally induced peripheral vasoconstriction (100% correct identification rate, p < 0.001). • Vessels measuring less than 100 µm in diameter can be depicted in vivo.

Increasing Navigation Speed at Endoluminal CT Colonography Reduces Colonic Visualization and Polyp Identification.

Purpose To investigate the effect of increasing navigation speed on the visual search and decision making during polyp identification for computed tomography (CT) colonography Materials and Methods Institutional review board permission was obtained to use deidentified CT colonography data for this prospective reader study. After obtaining informed consent from the readers, 12 CT colonography fly-through examinations that depicted eight polyps were presented at four different fixed navigation speeds to 23 radiologists. Speeds ranged from 1 cm/sec to 4.5 cm/sec. Gaze position was tracked by using an infrared eye tracker, and readers indicated that they saw a polyp by clicking a mouse. Patterns of searching and decision making by speed were investigated graphically and by multilevel modeling. Results Readers identified polyps correctly in 56 of 77 (72.7%) of viewings at the slowest speed but in only 137 of 225 (60.9%) of viewings at the fastest speed (P = .004). They also identified fewer false-positive features at faster speeds (42 of 115; 36.5%) of videos at slowest speed, 89 of 345 (25.8%) at fastest, P = .02). Gaze location was highly concentrated toward the central quarter of the screen area at faster speeds (mean gaze points at slowest speed vs fastest speed, 86% vs 97%, respectively). Conclusion Faster navigation speed at endoluminal CT colonography led to progressive restriction of visual search patterns. Greater speed also reduced both true-positive and false-positive colorectal polyp identification. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Patient experience of CT colonography and colonoscopy after fecal occult blood test in a national screening programme.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient experience of CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in a national screening programme. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patient experience postal questionnaires. We included screenees from a fecal occult blood test (FOBt) based screening programme, where CTC was performed when colonoscopy was incomplete or deemed unsuitable. We analyzed questionnaire responses concerning communication of test risks, test-related discomfort and post-test pain, as well as complications. CTC and colonoscopy responses were compared using multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 67,114 subjects identified, 52,805 (79 %) responded. Understanding of test risks was lower for CTC (1712/1970 = 86.9 %) than colonoscopy (48783/50975 = 95.7 %, p < 0.0001). Overall, a slightly greater proportion of screenees found CTC unexpectedly uncomfortable (506/1970 = 25.7 %) than colonoscopy (10,705/50,975 = 21.0 %, p < 0.0001). CTC was tolerated well as a completion procedure for failed colonoscopy (unexpected discomfort; CTC = 26.3 %: colonoscopy = 57.0 %, p < 0.001). Post-procedural pain was equally common (CTC: 288/1970,14.6 %, colonoscopy: 7544/50,975,14.8 %; p = 0.55). Adverse event rates were similar in both groups (CTC: 20/2947 = 1.2 %; colonoscopy: 683/64,312 = 1.1 %), but generally less serious with CTC. CONCLUSIONS: Even though CTC was reserved for individuals either unsuitable for or unable to complete colonoscopy, we found only small differences in test-related discomfort. CTC was well tolerated as a completion procedure and was extremely safe. CTC can be delivered across a national screening programme with high patient satisfaction. KEY POINTS: • High patient satisfaction at CTC is deliverable across a national screening programme. • Patients who cannot tolerate screening colonoscopy are likely to find CTC acceptable. • CTC is extremely safe; complications are rare and almost never serious. • Patients may require more detailed information regarding the expected discomfort of CTC.

Terminal digit preference biases polyp size measurements at endoscopy, computed tomographic colonography, and histopathology.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Terminal digit preference bias for "pleasing" numbers has been described in many areas of medicine. The aim of this study was to determine whether endoscopists, radiologists, and pathologists exhibit such bias when measuring colorectal polyp diameters. METHODS: Colorectal polyp diameters measured at endoscopy, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), and histopathology were collated from a colorectal cancer screening program and two parallel multicenter randomized trials. Smoothing models were fitted to the data to estimate the expected number of polyps at 1-mm increments, assuming no systematic measurement bias. The difference between the expected and observed numbers of polyps was calculated for each terminal digit using statistical modeling. The impact of measurement bias on per-patient detection rates of polyps ≥ 10 mm was estimated for each modality. RESULTS: A total of 92 124 individual polyps were measured by endoscopy (91 670 screening and 454 from trials), 2385 polyps were measured by CTC (1664 screening, 721 trials), and 79 272 were measured by histopathology (78 783 screening, 489 trials). Clustering of polyp diameter measurements at 5-mm intervals was demonstrated for all modalities, both in the screening program and the trials. The statistical models estimated that per-patient detection rates of polyps ≥ 10 mm were over-inflated by 2.4 % for endoscopy, 3.1 % for CTC, and 3.3 % for histopathology in the screening program, with similar trends in the randomized trials. CONCLUSION: Endoscopists, radiologists, and pathologists all exhibit terminal digit preference when measuring colorectal polyps. This will bias trial data, referral rates for further testing, adenoma surveillance regimens, and comparisons between tests.

Appearances of screen-detected versus symptomatic colorectal cancers at CT colonography.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the morphology, radiological stage, conspicuity, and computer-assisted detection (CAD) characteristics of colorectal cancers (CRC) detected by computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in screening and symptomatic populations. METHODS: Two radiologists independently analyzed CTC images from 133 patients diagnosed with CRC in (a) two randomized trials of symptomatic patients (35 patients with 36 tumours) and (b) a screening program using fecal occult blood testing (FOBt; 98 patients with 100 tumours), measuring tumour length, volume, morphology, radiological stage, and subjective conspicuity. A commercial CAD package was applied to both datasets. We compared CTC characteristics between screening and symptomatic populations with multivariable regression. RESULTS: Screen-detected CRC were significantly smaller (mean 3.0 vs 4.3 cm, p < 0.001), of lower volume (median 9.1 vs 23.2 cm3, p < 0.001) and more frequently polypoid (34/100, 34 % vs. 5/36, 13.9 %, p = 0.02) than symptomatic CRC. They were of earlier stage than symptomatic tumours (OR = 0.17, 95 %CI 0.07-0.41, p < 0.001), and were judged as significantly less conspicuous (mean conspicuity 54.1/100 vs. 72.8/100, p < 0.001). CAD detection was significantly lower for screen-detected (77.4 %; 95 %CI 67.9-84.7 %) than symptomatic CRC (96.9 %; 95 %CI 83.8-99.4 %, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Screen-detected CRC are significantly smaller, more frequently polypoid, subjectively less conspicuous, and less likely to be identified by CAD than those in symptomatic patients. KEY POINTS: • Screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRC) are significantly smaller than symptomatic CRC. • Screening cases are significantly less conspicuous to radiologists than symptomatic tumours. • Screen-detected CRC have different morphology compared to symptomatic tumours (more polypoid, fewer annular). • A commercial computer-aided detection (CAD) system was significantly less likely to note screen-detected CRC.

Perianal Sepsis in Hematologic Malignancy: MR Imaging Appearances and Distinction from Cryptoglandular Infection in Immunocompetent Patients.

PURPOSE: To use magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to document the appearance of perianal infection in patients with a hematologic malignancy (HM) compared with that in immunocompetent control patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After an ethical waiver was obtained, 38 patients with an HM were matched by age and sex to 38 control patients with no history of immunocompromise or Crohn disease. Both groups had undergone MR imaging for perianal symptoms and/or systemic sepsis. Two radiologists who were blinded to the diagnosis independently reviewed the MR images and recorded the size and distribution of abscesses and/or fistula tracts, the extent of perianal edema, and the likely diagnosis. Groups were compared by using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon, χ(2), or Fisher exact test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to estimate the ability of MR imaging to help distinguish patients with an HM from control patients. RESULTS: Patients with an HM had significantly greater perianal edema than did control patients (mean arc angle of anal canal involved, 220° vs 60°; P < .001). However, they had significantly lower rates of fistula (15 [39.5%] vs 35 [92.1%] of 38; P < .001). Abscesses were similar in frequency (10 [26.3%] vs 17 [44.7%] of 38; P = .15) and were unrelated to the degree of neutropenia (P = .71) or the use of chemotherapy (P = .10). Surgical treatment was rarely required in patients with an HM, either during the acute illness (four [10.5%] of 38) or thereafter (three [7.9%] of 38). MR imaging had an excellent ability to help discriminate patients with HM from immunocompetent patients (areas under the ROC curve, 0.91 and 0.97). CONCLUSION: Perianal infection in patients with an HM is more likely to cause diffuse perianal edema and is less likely to cause fistulas than in immunocompetent patients. MR imaging can help distinguish patients with an HM from those without immunocompromise.

Small Polyps at Endoluminal CT Colonography Are Often Seen But Ignored by Radiologists.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to describe the characteristics of polyps viewed but then dismissed incorrectly by radiologists at endoluminal CT colonography (CTC), eye movements during these errors, and features provoking false-positive diagnoses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two radiologists viewed 30 endoluminal CTC videos, each depicting a polyp, while their eye movements were tracked. Half of the videos had computer-assisted detection (CAD), and half did not. Classification errors were defined when proven polyps were seen but dismissed. Eye movements during these errors and during correct polyp identifications were compared with multilevel modeling. Polyps were divided subsequently into "difficult to classify" and "easy to classify" using a classification error threshold of more than 15%. Polyp diameter, height, and subjective conspicuity and the proportion of time viewed were compared between groups. RESULTS: Eye tracking revealed that 97% of false-negative polyp diagnoses were nonetheless preceded by the reader observing the polyp. The difficult polyps were significantly smaller than the easy polyps (mean diameter, 5.4 vs 8.2 mm, respectively p = 0.014) and were subjectively less conspicuous (median score, 4 vs 2; p = 0.0032). Readers spent proportionally less time viewing difficult polyps than viewing easy polyps (29.0% of the time they were on-screen vs 42.6%, respectively; p = 0.01) regardless of the presence of CAD. CONCLUSION: Even small and subjectively inconspicuous polyps attract reader gaze, but they are nonetheless ignored. These errors are made rapidly even with CAD. Efforts to improve reader performance at CTC should focus on decision making rather than detection alone.

Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

OBJECTIVE: To examine use of CT colonography (CTC) in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) and investigate detection rates. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of routinely coded BCSP data. Guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt)-positive screenees undergoing CTC from June 2006 to July 2012 as their first-line colonic investigation were included. Abnormalities found at CTC, subsequent polyp, adenoma and cancer detection and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. Detection rates were compared with those observed in gFOBt-positive screenees investigated by colonoscopy. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with variable detection. RESULTS: 2731 screenees underwent CTC. Colorectal cancer (CRC) or polyps were suspected in 1027 individuals (37.6%; 95% CI 33.8% to 41.4%); 911 of these underwent confirmatory testing. 124 screenees had CRC (4.5%) and 533 had polyps (19.5%), 468 adenomatous (17.1%). Overall detection was 24.1% (95% CI 21.5% to 26.6%) for CRC or polyps and 21.7% (95% CI 19.2% to 24.1%) for CRC or adenoma. Advanced neoplasia was detected in 504 screenees (18.5%; 95% CI 16.1% to 20.8%). PPV for CRC or polyp was 72.1% (95% CI 66.6% to 77.6%). By comparison, 9.0% of 72 817 screenees undergoing colonoscopy had cancer and 50.6% had polyps; advanced neoplasia was detected in 32.7%. CTC detection rates and PPV were higher at centres with experienced radiologists (>1000 examinations) and at high-volume centres (>175 cases/radiologist/annum). Centres using three-dimensional interpretation detected more neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: In the BCSP, detection rates after positive gFOBt are lower for CTC than colonoscopy, although populations undergoing the two tests are different. Centres with more experienced radiologists have higher detection and accuracy. Rigorous quality assurance of BCSP radiology is needed.

Detection of extracolonic pathologic findings with CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment of perceived benefits versus harms.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum rate of false-positive diagnoses that patients and health care professionals were willing to accept in exchange for detection of extracolonic malignancy by using computed tomographic (CT) colonography for colorectal cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After obtaining ethical approval and informed consent, 52 patients and 50 health care professionals undertook two discrete choice experiments where they chose between unrestricted CT colonography that examined intra- and extracolonic organs or CT colonography restricted to the colon, across different scenarios. The first experiment detected one extracolonic malignancy per 600 cases with a false-positive rate varying across scenarios from 0% to 99.8%. One experiment examined radiologic follow-up generated by false-positive diagnoses while the other examined invasive follow-up. Intracolonic performance was identical for both tests. The median tipping point (maximum acceptable false-positive rate for extracolonic findings) was calculated overall and for both groups by bootstrap analysis. RESULTS: The median tipping point for radiologic follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate greater than 99.8% (interquartile ratio [IQR], 10 to >99.8%). Participants would tolerate at least a 99.8% rate of unnecessary radiologic tests to detect an additional extracolonic malignancy. The median tipping-point for invasive follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate of 10% (IQR, 2 to >99.8%). Tipping points were significantly higher for patients than for health care professionals for both experiments (>99.8 vs 40% for radiologic follow-up and >99.8 vs 5% for invasive follow-up, both P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients and health care professionals are willing to tolerate high rates of false-positive diagnoses with CT colonography in exchange for diagnosis of extracolonic malignancy. The actual specificity of screening CT colonography for extracolonic findings in clinical practice is likely to be highly acceptable to both patients and health care professionals. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography for the detection of colonic neoplasia after positive faecal occult blood testing: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: CT colonography (CTC) is recommended after positive faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) when colonoscopy is incomplete or infeasible. We aimed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of CTC for colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps following positive FOBt via systematic review. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and Cochrane Library databases were searched for CTC studies reporting sensitivity and specificity for colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps. Included subjects had tested FOBt-positive by guaiac or immunochemical methods. Per-patient detection rates were summarized via forest plots. Meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity was conducted using a bivariate random effects model and the average operating point calculated. RESULTS: Of 538 articles considered, 5 met inclusion criteria, describing results from 622 patients. Research study quality was good. CTC had a high per-patient average sensitivity of 88.8 % (95 % CI 83.6 to 92.5 %) for ≥6 mm adenomas or colorectal cancer, with low between-study heterogeneity. Specificity was both more heterogeneous and lower, at an average of 75.4 % (95 % CI 58.6 to 86.8 %). CONCLUSION: Few studies have investigated CTC in FOBt-positive individuals. CTC is sensitive at a ≥6 mm threshold but specificity is lower and variable. Despite the limited data, these results suggest that CTC may adequately substitute for colonoscopy when the latter is undesirable. KEY POINTS: • FOBt is the most common mass screening test for colorectal cancer. • Few studies evaluate CT colonography after positive FOBt. • CTC is approximately 89 % sensitive for ≥6 mm adenomas/cancer in this setting. • Specificity is lower, at approximately 75 %, and more variable. • CT colonography is a good alternative when colonoscopy is undesirable.