MRI features associated with acute appendicitis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify MRI features associated with appendicitis. METHODS: Features expected to be associated with appendicitis were recorded in consensus by two expert radiologists on 223 abdominal MRIs in patients with suspected appendicitis. Nine MRI features were studied: appendix diameter >7 mm, appendicolith, peri-appendiceal fat infiltration, peri-appendiceal fluid, absence of gas in the appendix, appendiceal wall destruction, restricted diffusion of the appendiceal wall, lumen or focal fluid collections. Appendicitis was assigned as the final diagnosis in 117/223 patients. Associations between imaging features and appendicitis were evaluated with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: All investigated features were significantly associated with appendicitis in univariate analysis. Combinations of two and three features were associated with a probability of appendicitis of 88 % and 92 %, respectively. In patients without any of the nine features, appendicitis was present in 2 % of cases. After multivariate analysis, only an appendix diameter >7 mm, peri-appendiceal fat infiltration and restricted diffusion of the appendiceal wall were significantly associated with appendicitis. The probability of appendicitis was 96 % in their presence and 2 % in their absence. CONCLUSIONS: An appendix diameter >7 mm, peri-appendiceal fat infiltration and restricted diffusion of the appendiceal wall have the strongest association with appendicitis on MRI. KEY POINTS: • An enlarged appendix, fat infiltration and restricted diffusion are associated with appendicitis. • One such feature on MRI gives an 88 % probability of appendicitis. • Two features in combination give a probability of appendicitis of 94 %. • Combinations of three features give a probability of appendicitis of 96 %. • The absence of these features almost rules out appendicitis (2 %).

Acute appendicitis on abdominal MR images: training readers to improve diagnostic accuracy.

PURPOSE: To determine if training with direct feedback helps to improve the diagnostic performance of inexperienced readers in the detection of appendicitis on magnetic resonance (MR) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement for informed consent. Nine radiologists and eight residents without experience in evaluating MR images for acute abdominal conditions evaluated a training set of images from 100 MR imaging examinations of patients suspected of having appendicitis and received direct feedback after each evaluation. An expert panel made a diagnosis of appendicitis in 45 patients and an alternative diagnosis in 55 patients on the basis of histopathologic examination and follow-up. Readers recorded two diagnoses: the first after viewing images from conventional MR sequences (half-Fourier rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement and true fast imaging with steady-state precession) and the second after viewing diffusion-weighted (DW) MR images. Reader sensitivity and specificity were calculated per set of 25 cases. RESULTS: The average reader sensitivity for detecting appendicitis improved significantly after training (0.82 vs 0.92, P = .003); the average specificity improved nonsignificantly (0.82 vs 0.88, P = .10). Sensitivity for radiologists increased from 0.81 in the first set of 25 cases to 0.91 in the last set, and specificity improved from 0.82 to 0.85. For residents, sensitivity increased from 0.82 to 0.94, and specificity increased from 0.82 to 0.91. Sensitivity improved from 0.80 to 0.87 (P < .001) in all readings combined when DW images were read in addition to conventional MR images. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic accuracy of inexperienced readers in the evaluation of abdominal MR images for acute appendicitis improved after training with direct feedback, and the addition of DW images improved reader sensitivity.

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation.

The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare participant experience and preference of limited preparation computed tomography colonography (CTC) with full-preparation colonoscopy in a consecutive series of patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. CTC preparation comprised 180 ml diatrizoate meglumine, 80 ml barium and 30 mg bisacodyl. For the colonoscopy preparation 4 l of polyethylene glycol solution was used. Participants' experience and preference were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the chi-squared test, respectively. Associations between preference and experience parameters for the 173 participants were determined by logistic regression. Diarrhoea occurred in 94% of participants during CTC preparation. This side effect was perceived as severely or extremely burdensome by 29%. Nonetheless, the total burden was significantly lower for the CTC preparation than for colonoscopy (9% rated the CTC preparation as severely or extremely burdensome compared with 59% for colonoscopy; p < 0.001). Participants experienced significantly more pain, discomfort and total burden with the colonoscopy procedure than with CTC (p < 0.001). After 5 weeks, 69% preferred CTC, 8% were indifferent and 23% preferred colonoscopy (p < 0.001). A burdensome colonoscopy preparation and pain at colonoscopy were associated with CTC preference (p < 0.04). In conclusion, participants' experience and preference were rated in favour of CTC with limited bowel preparation compared with full-preparation colonoscopy.

Inter- and Intraobserver Agreement in Measuring Urolithiasis Density on Nonenhanced Computed Tomography.

Introduction: Treatment choice for urolithiasis is partially based on measuring stone density in HU on nonenhanced computed tomography (NECT). Interobserver variability in these measurements could have treatment consequences. This study aims to assess the observer agreement of measuring HU and whether the use of a protocol leads to a better agreement. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively included 155 consecutive NECTs of patients with stones ≥4 mm. Five observers (two radiologists, one urologist, one urology resident, and one radiology resident) assessed all anonymized NECTs four times in randomized order. HU was measured without instruction (rounds 1 and 2) and subsequently using two protocols (A and B, rounds 3 and 4). Protocols comprised using bone setting, zoom, and measuring HU without the penumbra, in either three (A) or one (B) axial plane. The inter- and intraobserver agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Interobserver agreement on HU measurement without protocol was as follows: ICC = 0.84 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.87). Agreement diminished with protocol A, ICC = 0.62 (CI: 0.37-0.76), and improved with protocol B, ICC = 0.90 (CI: 0.86-0.92). Intraobserver agreement without protocol was ICC = 0.87, with protocol A, ICC = 0.87, and with protocol B, ICC = 0.93. The biggest improvement was seen for urologists' agreement from no protocol to protocol B, where ICC improved from 0.81 (CI: 0.70-0.87) to 0.91 (CI: 0.84-0.94). Conclusions: Observer agreement of HU measurement of urolithiasis without protocol is already good but using zoom, bone setting, and measuring in a representative plane is recommended. This protocol results in higher agreement, especially among urologists. Measuring in three axial planes does not increase agreement.

Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?

We prospectively determined whether computer-aided detection (CAD) could improve the performance characteristics of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in a population of increased risk for colorectal cancer. Therefore, we included 170 consecutive patients that underwent both CTC and colonoscopy. All findings >or=6 mm were evaluated at colonoscopy by segmental unblinding. We determined per-patient sensitivity and specificity for polyps >or=6 mm and >or=10 mm without and with computer-aided detection (CAD). The McNemar test was used for comparison the results without and with CAD. Unblinded colonoscopy detected 50 patients with lesions >or=6 mm and 25 patients with lesions >or=10 mm. Sensitivity of CTC without CAD for these size categories was 80% (40/50, 95% CI: 69-81%) and 64% (16/25, 95% CI: 45-83%), respectively. CTC with CAD detected one additional patient with a lesion >or=6 mm and two with a lesion >or=10 mm, resulting in a sensitivity of 82% (41/50, 95% CI: 71-93%) (p = 0.50) and 72% (18/25, 95% CI: 54-90%) (p = 1.0), respectively. Specificity without CAD for polyps >or=6 mm and >or=10 mm was 84% (101/120, 95% CI: 78-91%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90-98%), respectively. With CAD, the specificity remained (nearly) unchanged: 83% (99/120, 95% CI: 76-89%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90-98%), respectively. Thus, although CTC with CAD detected a few more patients than CTC without CAD, it had no statistically significant positive influence on CTC performance.

CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers.

The purpose of this study was to investigate if experienced readers differ when matching polyps shown by both CT colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) and to explore the reasons for discrepancy. Twenty-eight CTC cases with corresponding OC were presented to eight experienced CTC readers. Cases represented a broad spectrum of findings, not completely fulfilling typical matching criteria. In 21 cases there was a single polyp on CTC and OC; in seven there were multiple polyps. Agreement between readers for matching was analyzed. For the 21 single-polyp cases, the number of correct matches per reader varied from 13 to 19. Almost complete agreement between readers was observed in 15 cases (71%), but substantial discrepancy was found for the remaining six (29%) probably due to large perceived differences in polyp size between CT and OC. Readers were able to match between 27 (71%) and 35 (92%) of the 38 CTC detected polyps in the seven cases with multiple polyps. Experienced CTC readers agree to a considerable extent when matching polyps between CTC and subsequent OC, but non-negligible disagreement exists.

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population.

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) colonography with limited bowel preparation for the depiction of colonic polyps, by using colonoscopy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained. Patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer underwent CT colonography after fecal tagging, which consisted of 80 mL of barium sulfate and 180 mL of diatrizoate meglumine. Bisacodyl was added for stool softening. A radiologist and a research fellow evaluated all data independently by using a primary two-dimensional approach. Discrepant findings for lesions 6 mm or larger in diameter were solved with consensus. Segmental unblinding was performed. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity, per-polyp sensitivity, and number of false-positive findings were found (for lesions > or = 6 mm and > or = 10 mm in diameter). Per-patient sensitivities (blinded colonoscopy vs CT colonography) were tested for significance with McNemar statistics. Interobserver variability was analyzed per segment (prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa values [kappa(p)]). RESULTS: One hundred fourteen of 168 patients (105 men, 63 women; mean age, 56 years) had polyps, with 56 polyps 6 mm or larger and 17 polyps 10 mm or larger. Per-patient sensitivities were not significantly different for CT colonography (consensus reading) and colonoscopy (P > or = .070). Sensitivity of CT colonography for patients with lesions 6 mm or larger and 10 mm or larger was 76% and 82%, respectively, and specificity of CT colonography was 79% and 97%, respectively. Blinded colonoscopy depicted 91% (lesions > or = 6 mm) and 88% (lesions > or = 10 mm) of disease in patients. Per-polyp sensitivity for CT colonography was 70% (lesions > or = 6 mm) and 82% (lesions > or = 10 mm). Number of false-positive findings was 42 (lesions > or = 6 mm) and six (lesions > or = 10 mm). kappa(p) Was 0.88 (lesions > or = 6 mm) and 0.96 (lesions > or = 10 mm). CONCLUSION: CT colonography with limited bowel preparation has a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 97% for patients with polyps 10 mm or larger.

Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to prospectively evaluate image quality and patient acceptance of CT colonography (CTC) with fecal tagging using different levels of catharsis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive increased-risk patients were randomized. Group 1 received orally 20 mg of bisacodyl, group 2 received 30 mg of bisacodyl, group 3 received 20 mg of bisacodyl and 8.2 g of magnesium citrate, and group 4 received 30 mg of bisacodyl and 16.4 g of magnesium citrate. All patients used a 2-day low-fiber diet and received diatrizoate meglumine and barium for fecal tagging. One reviewer blindly scored subjective image quality (fecal tagging, amount of residual feces [liquid or solid], luminal distention, and image readability) on a 5- to 6-point scale using a 2D review technique. The mean and SD of attenuation of tagging were measured as well as the relative SD as a measure of homogeneity. Furthermore, patient acceptance (burden related to diarrhea, abdominal pain, flatulence, and overall burden) was evaluated. Ordinal regression, generalized estimating equations, and parametric and nonparametric tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: Image readability was evaluated as good or excellent in all examinations except one in group 2 (nondiagnostic) and two in group 3 (moderate). Group 2 contained more feces than group 4 (p = 0.04). With regard to mean attenuation and homogeneity of tagging, no significant differences were observed between groups. Group 4 experienced more severe diarrhea than groups 1 and 2 and higher overall burden than groups 1 and 3 (p < 0.042). CONCLUSION: The mildest preparation with 20 mg of bisacodyl provided good image quality of CTC images. Increasing the amount of laxatives did not improve image quality or tagging characteristics but was associated with a lower patient acceptance.

Mandatory imaging in the work-up of children suspected of having appendicitis reduces the rate of unnecessary surgeries.

OBJECTIVE: In children, the diagnosis "acute appendicitis" is difficult. In 2010, a new Dutch appendicitis guideline was published with the goal to reduce the negative appendectomy rate. The guideline recommended mandatory imaging (ultrasound first and CT or MRI when inconclusive) before surgery. This study examines whether the negative appendectomy rate in children has declined after the implementation of the guideline and if the number of ionising imaging procedures increased. METHODS: In this cohort study, all consecutive patients aged 17 or younger, with the suspicion of appendicitis were included. Patients were divided into two groups. Those who presented between 2006 and 2010 (before the implementation) and those between 2011 and 2016 (after implementation). RESULTS: In total, 748 children were enrolled, of which 363 children were seen before and 385 children after implementation of the guideline. Before implementation, 46% of the children with acute appendicitis underwent preoperative ultrasound compared with 95% in the post implementation group, p < 0.001. Any imaging was performed in 51% and 100%, respectively, p < 0.001. The percentage of negative appendectomy before implementation was 13% and 2.7% after implementation, p < 0.001. There was no significant increase in the number of CT scans before and after the implementation of the guideline, 3.6% versus 6.0%, respectively, p = 0.126. There was no increase in direct medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory preoperative imaging in children with the suspicion of acute appendicitis results in a significant decrease in negative appendectomies with no increase in the number of CT scans and without a substantial increase in costs.

Diagnostic value of computed tomography for detecting anastomotic or staple line leakage after bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postbariatric anastomotic or staple line leakage (ASLL) is a dreaded complication with an incidence up to 1.6% and a leak-associated mortality of 5.0% to 16.7%. Feared low sensitivity of abdominal computed tomography (CT) for detecting ASLL is causing surgeons to omit CT and directly perform a diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with suspected ASLL. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic value of CT in case of suspected ASLL after bariatric procedures and to identify reliable CT characteristics predicting the presence of ASLL. SETTING: A large teaching hospital and bariatric center of excellence. METHODS: All CT scans performed for suspected ASLL after bariatric surgery in the period November 2007 until August 2016 were independently reevaluated by abdominal radiologists. The diagnostic value of CT by means of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value was analyzed comparing results of reevaluation to a standard of reference. Multivariable regression was performed to identify reliable CT characteristics for the presence of ASLL. RESULTS: A total of 66 CT scans were performed because of suspected leakage. Reevaluation of CT scans revealed a sensitivity of 89% to 100%, a specificity of 69% to 78%, a positive predictive value of 39% to 50%, and a negative predictive value of 97% to 100% of CT for detecting ASLL after bariatric surgery. Multivariable logistic regression of ASLL characteristics on CT revealed 'air near the anastomosis/staple line' as the only independent predictor for the presence of ASLL. CONCLUSION: With a sensitivity of 89% to 100% and negative predictive value of 97% to 100%, a negative CT can rule out ASLL in patients with a lower suspicion of ASLL.

Performance of radiographers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of radiographers with that of radiologists in the interpretation of CT colonographic images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four observers (a radiologist, a radiologist in training, and two radiographers) evaluated 145 data sets using a primary 3D approach. The radiographers were part of our CT colonography work group and underwent training that consisted of 20 cases. The reference standard was optical colonoscopy with second-look colonoscopy for discrepant lesions > or = 10 mm in diameter. Mean sensitivities per patient and per polyp stratified for size (any size, > or = 6 mm, and > or = 10 mm) was determined for the radiologists and radiographers. Specificity was determined on a per-patient basis. RESULTS: At colonoscopy in 86 of 145 patients, a total of 317 polyps were found (60 polyps > or = 6 mm in 26 patients and 31 polyps > or = 10 mm in 18 patients). No statistically significant differences were found in detection rates between radiologists and radiographers. Sensitivities for patients with a lesion of any size (66% for radiologists vs 65% for radiographers), > or = 6 mm (81% vs 87%), and > or = 10 mm (both 78%) were similar for all observers. On a per-polyp basis, detection rates were equivalent regardless of polyp size (47% vs 40%), for lesions > or = 6 mm (71% vs 65%), and for lesions > or = 10 mm (69% vs 66%). Mean specificities were similar among patients without lesions (31% vs 30%), patients without lesions > or = 6 mm (71% vs 67%), and patients without lesions > or = 10 mm (93% vs 93%). CONCLUSION: Radiographers with training in CT colonographic evaluation achieved sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection comparable with that of radiologists. Radiographers can be considered reviewers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images.

Accuracy and interobserver agreement between MR-non-expert radiologists and MR-experts in reading MRI for suspected appendicitis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare accuracy and interobserver agreement between radiologists with limited experience in the evaluation of abdominal MRI (non-experts), and radiologists with longer MR reading experience (experts), in reading MRI in patients with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: MR imaging was performed in 223 adult patients with suspected appendicitis and read independently by two members of a team of eight MR-inexperienced radiologists, who were trained with 100 MR examinations previous to this study (non-expert reading). Expert reading was performed by two radiologists with a larger abdominal MR experience (>500 examinations) in consensus. A final diagnosis was assigned after three months based on all available information, except MRI findings. We estimated MRI sensitivity and specificity for appendicitis and for all urgent diagnoses separately. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Urgent diagnoses were assigned to 147 of 223 patients; 117 had appendicitis. Sensitivity for appendicitis was 0.89 by MR-non-expert radiologists and 0.97 in MR-expert reading (p=0.01). Specificity was 0.83 for MR-non-experts versus 0.93 for MR-expert reading (p=0.002). MR-experts and MR-non-experts agreed on appendicitis in 89% of cases (kappa 0.78). Accuracy in detecting urgent diagnoses was significantly lower in MR-non-experts compared to MR-expert reading: sensitivity 0.84 versus 0.95 (p<0.001) and specificity 0.71 versus 0.82 (p=0.03), respectively. Agreement on urgent diagnoses was 83% (kappa 0.63). CONCLUSION: MR-non-experts have sufficient sensitivity in reading MRI in patients with suspected appendicitis, with good agreement with MR-expert reading, but accuracy of MR-expert reading was higher.

MR colonography with limited bowel preparation: patient acceptance compared with that of full-preparation colonoscopy.

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate participants' experience and preference of magnetic resonance (MR) colonography with limited bowel preparation compared with full-preparation colonoscopy in participants at increased risk for colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study had institutional review board approval; all participants gave written informed consent. In this multicenter study, consecutive participants undergoing conventional colonoscopy because of a personal or family history of colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps underwent MR colonography 2 weeks prior to colonoscopy. They all followed a low-fiber diet and were given lactulose and an oral contrast agent (fecal tagging with gadolinium) 2 days before colonography. Before imaging, spasmolytics were administered intravenously, and a water-gadolinium chelate mixture was administered rectally for distention of the colon. Breath-hold T1- and T2-weighted sequences were performed in the prone and supine positions. Participant experience in terms of, for example, pain and burden was determined by using a five-point scale and was evaluated with a Wilcoxon signed rank test; participant preference was determined by using a seven-point scale and was evaluated with the chi2 statistic after dichotomizing. RESULTS: Two hundred nine participants (77 women, 132 men; mean age, 58 years; range, 23-84 years) were included. One hundred forty-eight participants received sedatives (midazolam) and/or analgesics (fentanyl) during colonoscopy. Participants rated the MR colonography bowel preparation as less burdensome (P<.001) compared with the colonoscopy bowel preparation (10% and 71% of participants rated the respective examinations moderately to extremely burdensome). Participants also experienced less pain at MR colonography (P<.001) and found MR colonography less burdensome (P<.001). Immediately after both examinations, 69% of participants preferred MR colonography, 22% preferred colonoscopy, and 9% were indifferent (P<.001, 69% vs 22%). After 5 weeks, 65% preferred MR colonography and 26% preferred colonoscopy (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Participants preferred MR colonography without extensive cleansing to colonoscopy immediately after both examinations and 5 weeks later. Experience of the bowel preparation and of the procedure was rated better.

MR colonography with limited bowel preparation compared with optical colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance (MR) colonography by using limited bowel preparation in patients with polyps of 10 mm or larger in diameter in a population at increased risk for colorectal cancer, with optical colonoscopy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review boards of all three hospitals approved the study. All patients provided written informed consent. In this multicenter study, patients undergoing colonoscopy because of a personal or family history of colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps were included. Two blinded observers independently evaluated T1- and T2-weighted MR colonographic images obtained with limited bowel preparation (bright-lumen fecal tagging) for the presence of polyps. The limited bowel preparation consisted of a low-fiber diet, with ingestion of lactulose and an oral gadolinium-based contrast agent (with all three major meals) starting 48 hours prior to imaging. Results were verified with colonoscopic outcomes. Patient sensitivity, patient specificity, polyp sensitivity, and interobserver agreement for lesions of 10 mm or larger were calculated for both observers individually and combined. RESULTS: Two hundred patients (mean age, 58 years; 128 male patients) were included; 41 patients had coexistent symptoms. At colonoscopy, 12 patients had 22 polyps of 10 mm or larger. Per-patient sensitivity was 58% (seven of 12) for observer 1, 67% (eight of 12) for observer 2, and 75% (nine of 12) for both observers combined for polyps of 10 mm or larger. Per-patient specificity was 95% (178 of 188) for observer 1, 97% (183 of 188) for observer 2, and 93% (175 of 188) for both observers combined. Per-polyp sensitivity was 55% (12 of 22) for observer 1, 50% (11 of 22) for observer 2, and 77% (17 of 22) for both observers combined. Interobserver agreement was 93% for identification of patients with lesions of 10 mm or larger. CONCLUSION: In patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer, specificity of MR colonography by using limited bowel preparation was high, but sensitivity was modest.

A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography.

The aim of our study was to compare primary three-dimensional (3D) and primary two-dimensional (2D) review methods for CT colonography with regard to polyp detection and perceptive errors. CT colonography studies of 77 patients were read twice by three reviewers, first with a primary 3D method and then with a primary 2D method. Mean numbers of true and false positives, patient sensitivity and specificity and perceptive errors were calculated with colonoscopy as a reference standard. A perceptive error was made if a polyp was not detected by all reviewers. Mean sensitivity for large (> or = 10 mm) polyps for primary 3D and 2D review was 81% (14.7/18) and 70%(12.7/18), respectively (p-values > or = 0.25). Mean numbers of large false positives for primary 3D and 2D were 8.3 and 5.3, respectively. With primary 3D and 2D review 1 and 6 perceptive errors, respectively, were made in 18 large polyps (p = 0.06). For medium-sized (6-9 mm) polyps these values were for primary 3D and 2D, respectively: mean sensitivity: 67%(11.3/17) and 61%(10.3/17; p-values > or = 0.45), number of false positives: 33.3 and 15.6, and perceptive errors : 4 and 6 (p = 0.53). No significant differences were found in the detection of large and medium-sized polyps between primary 3D and 2D review.

Effective radiation doses in CT colonography: results of an inventory among research institutions.

The purpose of this study was to estimate the effective dose that is currently used in CT colonography using scan parameters that were collected for this purpose, and to investigate trends in time. PubMed was systematically searched from 1996 until January 2004 for studies investigating CT colonography. Research institutions were contacted and asked for their current scan protocol. Thirty-six institutions published 74 studies. Twenty-eight of the 36 institutions provided their current protocol. The median effective dose in 2004 was 5.1 mSv (range 1.2-11.7 mSv) per position. Most institutions (93%) scan in both the supine and prone positions. The median mAs value was 67 mAs (range 20-200), median collimation was 2.5 mm (range 0.75-5). From 1996 until 2004 a significant decrease in mAs and collimation (P=0.006, P<0.0001, respectively) was observed, while institutions that used a multislice scanner increased (P<0.0001). The effective dose remained constant (P=0.76). In 2004 the median effective dose for a complete CT colonography was 10.2 mSv. Despite the increasing use of multislice scanners, which are slightly less dose-efficient, the median effective dose remained approximately constant between 1996 and 2004. This is mainly caused by the use of lower mAs settings.