Virtual gastrointestinal colonoscopy in combination with large bowel endoscopy: clinical application.

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) has no longer been the leading cancer killer worldwide for years with the exponential development in computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography/CT as well as virtual colonoscopy for early detection, the CRC related mortality is still high. The objective of CRC screening is to reduce the burden of CRC and thereby the morbidity and mortality rates of the disease. It is believed that this goal can be achieved by regularly screening the average-risk population, enabling the detection of cancer at early, curable stages, and polyps before they become cancerous. Large-scale screening with multimodality imaging approaches plays an important role in reaching that goal to detect polyps, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis and CRC in early stage. This article reviews kinds of presentative imaging procedures for various screening options and updates detecting, staging and re-staging of CRC patients for determining the optimal therapeutic method and forecasting the risk of CRC recurrence and the overall prognosis. The combination use of virtual colonoscopy and conventional endoscopy, advantages and limitations of these modalities are also discussed.

Colonografia por tomografia computadorizada versus colonoscopia óptica no rastreamento do câncer colorretal: uma revisão sistemática / Computed tomographic colonography versus optical colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review

Objetivo: comparar, por meio de uma revisão sistematizada, a colonografia por tomografia (CTC) versus colonoscopia óptica (CO) em relação ao rastreamento e vigilância do câncer colorretal (CCR). Método: foram analisados estudos em inglês e português sobre CTC e CO realizados em humanos adultos de ambos os sexos, publicados no MedLine/PubMed (National Library of Medicine) e no Scielo (Scientific Eletronic Library Online) no período entre 1990 a 2013. A busca incluiu combinações de palavras-chave (Colonoscopy, Cólonoscopic surgery, virtual Colonoscopy, CT Colonography) com boolianos AND e OR. Os critérios de inclusão foram ensaios clínicos controlados e randomizados, estudo de revisão, revisões sistemáticas com ou sem metanálise, consenso, pacientes adultos, pacientes assintomáticos ou sintomáticos. Os critérios de exclusão foram pacientes inapropriados e somente em resumo. Resultados: foram selecionados 26 estudos com melhor abordagem dos desfechos selecionados para rastreamento e vigilância do câncer (CCR). O número global de pacientes submetidos às variáveis foi de 397.342 indivíduos. Os valores das variáveis de sensibilidade e especificidade para detecção de pólipos maior ou igual a 10mm e câncer colorretal apresentam percentagens semelhantes, sendo a taxa de sensibilidade da CTC diretamente proporcional ao tamanho do pólipo. A taxa de pacientes submetidos à CO após a CTC variou de 12% a 36,4%; destes, 3,8% apresentaram lesões significativas. A análise da taxa de CO incompleta obteve um padrão de variações entre 11% e 64,8%. A aceitação dos pacientes, tanto para o preparo intestinal como para o procedimento, foi maior para a CTC. Os achados extracólicos nos pacientes submetidos à CTC foram analisados e variaram de 58 a 69%. As complicações dos dois métodos foram baixas, maior na CO. Conclusão: as diferenças na sensibilidade e especificidade entre a CO e a CTC no rastreamento e vigilância do CCR não são relevantes. A indicação de CO após CTC deve seguir critérios consensuais para evitar aumento de custos e de riscos ao paciente. Pacientes com CO incompleta têm indicação de realizar CTC por se enquadrar no grupo de alto risco para desenvolver CCR. A aceitação dos pacientes na realização dos dois métodos é boa e não representa impedimento ao rastreamento e vigilância do CCR. Os achados extracólicos na CTC é um benefício adicional para o paciente. As complicações inerentes aos dois métodos não superam o impacto positivo dos mesmos na prevenção do CCR.

Objective: to compare in a systematic review the computed tomographic Colonography (CTC) and the optical Colonoscopy (OC) methods for the screening and monitoring of colorectal cancer (CRC). Method: english and portuguese studies on CTC and OC that were carried out on adult humans of both genders that had been published in MedLine/PubMed (National Library of Medicine) and SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online) between 1990 and 2013 were analyzed. The search included combinations of keywords (Colonoscopy, Cólonoscopic surgery, virtual Colonoscopy, CT Colonography, etc.) with the AND and OR Boolean operators. The inclusion criteria were as follows: controlled and randomized clinical trials, review studies, systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis, consensus, adult patients, and asymptomatic or symptomatic patients. The exclusion criteria were as follows: unsuitable patients and manuscripts only containing abstracts. Results: twenty-six studies that included the selected outcomes for screening for and monitoring CRC were selected. The overall number of patients analyzed was 397, 342 individuals. The sensitivity and specificity percentages for the detection of polyps greater than or equal to 10 mm and for colorectal cancer were similar between the two methods, and the CTC sensitivity rate was directly proportional to the size of the polyp. The rate of patients undergoing OC after CTC ranged from 12% to 36.4%, and of these patients, 3.8% had significant lesions. The analysis of the incomplete OC rate found variation ranging from 11 to 64.8%. The acceptance rates of the patients for both intestinal preparation and for the procedure were greater for CTC. The extracolic findings in patients undergoing CTC were analyzed and ranged from 58 to 69%. Complications were minimal for the patients undergoing both methods and higher for those in the OC group. Conclusion: the differences in the sensitivity and specificity of OC and CTC in screening and monitoring CRC are not significant. The indication of OC after CTC must follow agreed-upon criteria to avoid increased costs and risks to the patient. Patients with an incomplete OC should undergo CTC, as they fall within the high risk group for developing CRC. The acceptance of patients undergoing the two methods is good and does not represent an impediment to screening for and monitoring CRC. The extracolic findings, in the CTC group, is an additional benefit to the patient. The complications inherent in the two methods do not outweigh their positive impacts in the prevention of CRC.

Direct access colonoscopy in primary care: is it a safe and practical approach?

BACKGROUND: Implementation of colorectal cancer screening programme and provision of cancer service within certain timeframe has significantly increased the workload on endoscopy services. Direct access colonoscopy in primary care centers helps offload burden on conventional colonoscopy in secondary care, thereby reducing waiting times. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of direct access colonoscopy service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Provision of colonoscopy service in our healthcare trust was analysed retrospectively during a two-year period. Safety and feasibility of direct access colonoscopy was analysed against conventional colonoscopy. The groups were compared for findings at colonoscopy, procedural outcomes, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 3468 colonoscopies were analysed. Of those, 1189(34.3%) were performed as direct access colonoscopy and 2279(65.7%) as conventional colonoscopy. No abnormality was detected in 408/1189(34.3%) and 825/2279(36.2%) patients in the direct access colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy groups, respectively (p = 0.52). Colorectal cancer detection rate was similar between the groups; conventional colonoscopy vs direct access colonoscopy, 3.1% (68/2279) vs 3.2% (39/1189) (p = 0.85). However, there was significantly higher detection rate of polyps greater than 1 cm in conventional colonoscopy group compared to direct access colonoscopy group, 22.6%(518/2289) vs 12.6% (150/1189) (p = 0.02). Complication rates were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSION: Direct access colonoscopy in primary care centers is safe and feasible. Colorectal cancer detection remains comparable to that of conventional colonoscopy in secondary care despite relatively lower polyp detection rate.

Evaluation of magnifying colonoscopy in the diagnosis of serrated polyps.

AIM: To elucidate the colonoscopic features of serrated lesions of the colorectum using magnifying colonoscopy. METHODS: Broad division of serrated lesions of the colorectum into hyperplastic polyps (HPs), traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs), and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps) has been proposed on the basis of recent molecular biological studies. However, few reports have examined the colonoscopic features of these divisions, including magnified colonoscopic findings. This study examined 118 lesions excised in our hospital as suspected serrated lesions after magnified observation between January 2008 and September 2011. Patient characteristics (sex, age), conventional colonoscopic findings (location, size, morphology, color, mucin) and magnified colonoscopic findings (pit pattern diagnosis) were interpreted by five colonoscopists with experience in over 1000 colonoscopies, and were compared with histopathological diagnoses. The pit patterns were categorized according to Kudo's classification, but a more detailed investigation was also performed using the subclassification [type II-Open (type II-O), type II-Long (type II-L), or type IV-Serrated (type IV-S)] proposed by Kimura T and Yamano H. RESULTS: Lesions comprised 23 HPs (23/118: 19.5%), 39 TSAs (39/118: 33.1%: with cancer in one case), 50 SSA/Ps (50/118: 42.4%: complicated with cancer in three cases), and six others (6/118: 5.1%). We excluded six others, including three regular adenomas, one hamartoma, one inflammatory polyp, and one juvenile polyp for further analysis. Conventional colonoscopy showed that SSA/Ps were characterized as larger in diameter than TSAs and HPs (SSA/P vs HP, 13.62 ± 8.62 mm vs 7.74 ± 3.24 mm, P < 0.001; SSA/Ps vs TSA, 13.62 ± 8.62 mm vs 9.89 ± 5.73 mm, P < 0.01); common in the right side of the colon [HPs, 30.4% (7/23): TSAs, 20.5% (8/39): SSA/P, 84.0% (42/50), P < 0.001]; flat-elevated lesion [HPs, 30.4% (7/23): TSAs, 5.1% (2/39): SSA/Ps, 90.0% (45/50), P < 0.001]; normal-colored or pale imucosa [HPs, 34.8% (8/23): TSAs, 10.3% (4/39): SSA/Ps, 80% (40/50), P < 0.001]; and with large amounts of mucin [HPs, 21.7% (5/23): TSAs, 17.9% (7/39): SSA/Ps, 72.0% (36/50), P < 0.001]. In magnified colonoscopic findings, 17 lesions showed either type II pit pattern alone or partial type II pit pattern as the basic architecture, with 14 HPs (14/17, 70.0%) and 3 SSA/Ps. Magnified colonoscopy showed the type II-O pit pattern as characteristic of SSA/Ps [sensitivity 83.7% (41/49), specificity 85.7% (54/63)]. Cancer was also present in three lesions, in all of which a type VI pit pattern was also present within the same lesion. There were four HPs and four TSAs each. The type IV-S pit pattern was characteristic of TSAs [sensitivity 96.7% (30/31), specificity 89.9% (72/81)]. Cancer was present in one lesion, in which a type VI pit pattern was also present within the same lesion. In our study, serrated lesions of the colorectum also possessed the features described in previous reports of conventional colonoscopic findings. The pit pattern diagnosis using magnifying colonoscopy, particularly magnified colonoscopic findings using subclassifications of surface architecture, reflected the pathological characteristics of SSA/Ps and TSAs, and will be useful for colonoscopic diagnosis. CONCLUSION: We suggest that this system could be a good diagnostic tool for SSA/Ps using magnifying colonoscopy.

Capsule endoscopy compared with conventional colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasms.

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) may be a means to overcome the low adherence to colorectal cancer screening. The device is an ingestible capsule with a video camera at both ends that can take photographs as it progresses through the gastrointestinal tract. PillCam colon (PCC1) may be used for structural evaluation of the large bowel following an adequate cleaning procedure. PCC1 measures 11 mm × 31 mm and has dual cameras that enable the device to acquire video images from both ends with a wide coverage area, automatic light control and a frame rate of four frames per second. The system includes a sensor array and data recorder connected to the patient during the procedure. The recorded data are downloaded to the Given Imaging Rapid workstation for review of the colon video. The second generation of PillCam Colon (PCC2) is similar to PCC1 and incorporates new developments. The angle of view has been increased to 172 degrees. It has an adaptive frame rate, alternating from 35 frames per second while in motion to 4 images when virtually stationary. The new RAPID(®) software now includes a simple graphic interface tool for polyp size estimation. The procedure of bowel cleansing until capsule ingestion is similar to that used for traditional colonoscopy. However it is more rigorous as the bowel cleanliness for capsule colonoscopy has to be excellent or at least good to result in an adequate sensitivity of the method. Briefly, it consists of 3.5-4 L of split dose polyethylene glycol. Oral NaP boosters are administered after 1-2 h if the capsule has entered the small bowel. Sodium phosphate (NaP) seems to be a necessary adjunct to the regimen because the total transit time is doubled without NaP. The cleansing level was considered to be good to excellent in 72%-88% in studies with PCC1. The sensitivity for significant polyps (> 6 mm or more than 3 polyps >3 mm) ranged from 63%-88% with specificities between 64%-94%. PCC2 showed an improved sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 76%. CCE seems to be a safe and effective method of visualizing the colonic mucosa through colon fluids without the need for sedation or insufflation of air. The sensitivity of CCE to detect polyps, advanced adenomas and cancer is lower compared to optical colonoscopy but improvements will be made in the near future. With an increased recording duration, even a panenteric examination of the whole gastrointestinal tract may be possible.