Extracolonic findings at virtual colonoscopy: an important consideration in asymptomatic colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Virtual colonoscopy has been evaluated for use as a colorectal cancer screening tool, and in prior studies, it has been estimated that the evaluation of extra-colonic findings adds $28-$34 per patient studied. METHODS: As an ancillary study to a prospective cohort study comparing virtual colonoscopy to conventional colonoscopy for colorectal cancer detection, the investigators retrospectively determined the number and estimated costs of all clinic visits, imaging and laboratory studies, and medical procedures that were generated as a direct result of extra-colonic findings at virtual colonoscopy. RESULTS: We enrolled 143 subjects who underwent CTC followed by conventional colonoscopy. Data were available for 136 subjects, and 134 (98%) had at least one extra-colonic finding on CT. Evaluation of extra-colonic findings was performed in 32 subjects (24%). These subjects underwent 73 imaging studies, 30 laboratory studies, 44 clinic visits, 6 medical procedures, and 44 new or return outpatient visits over a mean of 38 months following the CTC. The most common findings causing further evaluation were lung nodules and indeterminate kidney lesions. No extra-colonic malignancies were found in this study. A total of $33,690 was spent in evaluating extra-colonic findings, which is $248 per patient enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of the evaluation of extra-colonic findings following virtual colonoscopy may be much higher in actual practice than is suggested by prior studies. This will impact the cost-effectiveness of using virtual colonoscopy for asymptomatic colorectal cancer screening and underscores the importance of standardizing the reporting of extra-colonic findings to encourage appropriate follow-up.

Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Virtual colonoscopy using abdominal spiral computed tomography scanning allows total colonic evaluation with minimal invasiveness. Two-dimensional images and selective 3-dimensional images of the colon are used to detect colorectal lesions. This trial used conventional colonoscopy with segmental unblinding to determine the ability of virtual colonoscopy to identify patients with colorectal lesions who need conventional colonoscopy. METHODS: We studied 205 patients with virtual colonoscopy using oral iodinated contrast preceding conventional colonoscopy. Colonic lavage was achieved with an oral sodium phosphosoda preparation and colonic distention with a carbon dioxide electronic insufflator. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity and specificity of virtual colonoscopy in identifying patients with colorectal lesions was 61.8% and 70.7%, respectively. Virtual colonoscopy was more accurate in identifying patients with lesions >/=6 mm (sensitivity 84.4% and specificity 83.1%) and those with lesions >/=10 mm (sensitivity 90% and specificity 94.6%). The negative predictive value of virtual colonoscopy was 95% for a 6-mm cutoff size and 98.9% for a 10-mm cutoff. Using a 10-mm cutoff, virtual colonoscopy precludes the need for conventional colonoscopy in 86% of patients with a 1% false-negative rate (68% with a 3.4% false-negative rate when using a 6-mm cutoff). CONCLUSIONS: Virtual colonoscopy has a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting patients with significant colorectal lesions. Its high negative predictive value may help reduce the number of negative screening colonoscopies. Further studies are needed to determine what lesion cutoff size is clinically acceptable and the appropriate interval time for repeat virtual colonoscopy when it detects lesions below this cutoff size.