National CT colonography trial (ACRIN 6664): comparison of three full-laxative bowel preparations in more than 2500 average-risk patients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to compare the effect of three different full-laxative bowel preparations on patient compliance, residual stool and fluid, reader confidence, and polyp detection at CT colonography (CTC). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 2531 patients underwent CTC followed by colonoscopy for the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) National CTC Trial. Of this total, 2525 patients used one of three bowel preparations with bisacodyl tablets and stool and fluid tagging: 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG); 90 mL of phosphosoda; or 300 mL of magnesium citrate. Patients reported percent compliance with the bowel preparation and radiologists graded each CTC examination for the amount of residual fluid and stool on a scale from 1 (none) to 4 (nondiagnostic). Reader confidence for true-positive findings was reported on a 5-point scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high). Sensitivity and specificity for detecting polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 1 cm compared with colonoscopy were calculated for each preparation. RESULTS: The most commonly prescribed preparation was phosphosoda (n = 1403) followed by PEG (n = 1020) and magnesium citrate (n = 102). Phosphosoda had the highest patient compliance (p = 0.01), least residual stool (p < 0.001), and highest reader confidence versus PEG for examinations with polyps (p = 0.06). Magnesium citrate had significantly more residual fluid compared with PEG and phosphosoda (p = 0.006). The sensitivity and specificity for detecting colon polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 1 cm did not differ significantly between preparations. CONCLUSION: Polyp detection was comparable for all three preparations, although phosphosoda had significantly higher patient compliance and the least residual stool.

Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a noninvasive option in screening for colorectal cancer. However, its accuracy as a screening tool in asymptomatic adults has not been well defined. METHODS: We recruited 2600 asymptomatic study participants, 50 years of age or older, at 15 study centers. CT colonographic images were acquired with the use of standard bowel preparation, stool and fluid tagging, mechanical insufflation, and multidetector-row CT scanners (with 16 or more rows). Radiologists trained in CT colonography reported all lesions measuring 5 mm or more in diameter. Optical colonoscopy and histologic review were performed according to established clinical protocols at each center and served as the reference standard. The primary end point was detection by CT colonography of histologically confirmed large adenomas and adenocarcinomas (10 mm in diameter or larger) that had been detected by colonoscopy; detection of smaller colorectal lesions (6 to 9 mm in diameter) was also evaluated. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 2531 participants (97%). For large adenomas and cancers, the mean (+/-SE) per-patient estimates of the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for CT colonography were 0.90+/-0.03, 0.86+/-0.02, 0.23+/-0.02, 0.99+/-<0.01, and 0.89+/-0.02, respectively. The sensitivity of 0.90 (i.e., 90%) indicates that CT colonography failed to detect a lesion measuring 10 mm or more in diameter in 10% of patients. The per-polyp sensitivity for large adenomas or cancers was 0.84+/-0.04. The per-patient sensitivity for detecting adenomas that were 6 mm or more in diameter was 0.78. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of asymptomatic adults, CT colonographic screening identified 90% of subjects with adenomas or cancers measuring 10 mm or more in diameter. These findings augment published data on the role of CT colonography in screening patients with an average risk of colorectal cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00084929; American College of Radiology Imaging Network [ACRIN] number, 6664.)