Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence.7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence.8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6-9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Source and scope This is an update of the 2014-15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.

1: ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 - 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Electronic cleansing of tagged residue in CT colonography: what radiologists need to know.

CT colonography (CTC) is the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Faecal tagging is considered a mandatory part of bowel preparation. However, the colonic mucosa, obscured by tagged residue, is not accessible to endoluminal 3D views and requires time-consuming 2D evaluation. Electronic cleansing (EC) software algorithms can overcome this limitation by digitally subtracting tagged residue from the colonic lumen. Ideally, this enables a seamless 3D endoluminal evaluation. Despite this benefit, EC is a potential source of a wide range of artefacts. Accurate EC requires proper CTC examination technique and faecal tagging. The digital subtraction process has been shown to affect the relevant morphological features of both colonic anatomy and colonic lesions, if submerged under faecal residue. This article summarises the potential effects of EC on CTC imaging, the consequences for reporting and patient management, and strategies to avoid pitfalls. Furthermore, potentially negative effects on clinical reporting and patient management are shown, and problem-solving techniques, as well as recommendations for the appropriate use of EC techniques, are presented. Radiologists using EC should be familiar with EC-related effects on polyp size and also with correct measurement techniques.

Pearls and Pitfalls of Interpretation in CT Colonography.

The accuracy of computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) requires that the radiologist be well trained in the recognition of pitfalls of interpretation. In order to achieve a high sensitivity and specificity, the interpreting radiologist must be well versed in the causes of both false-positive and false-negative results. In this article, we review the common and uncommon pitfalls of interpretation in CTC.

CT colonography: size reduction of submerged colorectal polyps due to electronic cleansing and CT-window settings.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether electronic cleansing (EC) of tagged residue and different computed tomography (CT) windows influence the size of colorectal polyps in CT colonography (CTC). METHODS: A database of 894 colonoscopy-validated CTC datasets of a low-prevalence cohort was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients with polyps ≥6 mm that were entirely submerged in tagged residue. Ten radiologists independently measured the largest diameter of each polyp, two-dimensionally, before and after EC in colon, bone, and soft-tissue-windows, in randomised order. Differences in size and polyp count before and after EC were calculated for size categories ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm. Statistical testing involved 95% confidence interval, intraclass correlation and mixed-model ANOVA. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients with 48 polyps were included. Mean polyp size before EC was 9.8 mm in colon, 9.9 mm in bone and 8.2 mm in soft-tissue windows. After EC, the mean polyp size decreased significantly to 9.4 mm in colon, 9.1 mm in bone and 7.1 mm in soft-tissue windows. Compared to unsubtracted colon windows, EC, performed in colon, bone and soft-tissue windows, led to a shift of 6 (12,5%), 10 (20.8%) and 25 (52.1%) polyps ≥6 mm into the next smaller size category, thus affecting patient risk stratification. CONCLUSIONS: EC and narrow CT windows significantly reduce the size of polyps submerged in tagged residue. Polyp measurements should be performed in unsubtracted colon windows. KEY POINTS: • EC significantly reduces the size of polyps submerged in tagged residue. • Abdominal CT-window settings significantly underestimate 2D sizes of submerged polyps. • Size reduction in EC is significantly greater in narrow than wide windows. • Underestimation of polyp size due to EC may lead to inadequate treatment. • Polyp measurements should be performed in unsubtracted images using a colon window.

Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline.

This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp  ≥  6  mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Image quality improvement in submillisievert computed tomographic colonography using a fast 3-dimensional noise reduction method.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the image quality in submillisievert computed tomographic colonography (CTC) images using a structure preserving diffusion denoising method. METHODS: Image quality was compared before and after denoising in 31 patients. One hundred twenty-kilovolt, 30-mAs prone CTC scans were used as reference and compared with submillisievert 140-kV, 10-mAs supine scans. Two readers assessed 2-dimensional and endoluminal image quality. The image noise and the signal-to-noise ratio were measured. RESULTS: After denoising, image quality scores improved in both supine series and prone series (P < 0.0001), with the submillisievert denoised images being equal to or better than the native prone reference images. In both the supine images and the prone images, the noise was reduced by a factor of 2 and the signal-to-noise ratio was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The signal-to-noise ratio in the denoised submillisievert images was higher than those in the native prone images (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The structure preserving diffusion denoising method preserves the image quality in submillisievert CTC images compared with the native 30-mAs reference images.

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of CT colonography interpreted by radiologists and radiographers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare computed tomographic colonography (CTC) performance of four trained radiographers with the CTC performance of two experienced radiologists. METHODS: Four radiographers and two radiologists interpreted 87 cases with 40 polyps ≥6 mm. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were assessed on a per-patient basis. On a per-polyp basis, sensitivity was calculated according to the respective size categories (polyps ≥6 mm as well as polyps ≥10 mm). RESULTS: Overall per-patient sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm was 76.2 % (95 % CI 61.4-91.0) and 76.2 % (95 % CI 61.7-90.6), for the radiographers and radiologists, respectively. Overall per-patient specificity for polyps ≥6 mm were 81.4 % (95 % CI 73.7-89.2) and 81.1 % (95 % CI 73.8-88.3) for the radiographers and the radiologists, respectively. For the radiographers, overall per-polyp sensitivity was 60.3 % (95 % CI 50.3-70.3) and 60.7 % (95 % CI 42.2-79.2) for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, respectively. For the radiologists, overall per polyp sensitivity was 59.2 % (95 % CI 46.4-72.0) and 69.0 % (95 % CI 48.1-89.6) for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Radiographers with training in CT colonographic evaluation achieved sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection comparable with that of experienced radiologists. MAIN MESSAGES: • The diagnostic accuracy of trained radiographers was comparable to that of experienced radiologists. • The use of radiographers in reading CTC examinations is acceptable, however radiologists would still be necessary for the evaluation of extracolonic findings. • Skilled non-radiologists may play a vital role as a second reader of intraluminal findings or by performing quality control of examinations before patient dismissal.

Teleradiology based CT colonography to screen a population group of a remote island; at average risk for colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess the performance of teleradiology-based CT colonography to screen a population group of an island, at average risk for colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 514 patients living in Madeira, Portugal, was enrolled in the study. Institutional review board approval was obtained and all patients signed an informed consent. All patients underwent both CT colonography and optical colonoscopy. CT colonography was interpreted by an experienced radiologist at a remote centre using tele-radiology. Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated for colorectal adenomas and advanced neoplasia ≥6 mm. RESULTS: 510 patients were included in the study. CT colonography obtained a per-patient sensitivity, specificity, PPV and, NPV for adenomas ≥6 mm of 98.11% (88.6-99.9% 95% CI), 90.97% (87.8-93.4% 95% CI), 56.52% (45.8-66.7% 95% CI), 99.75% (98.4-99.9% 95% CI). For advanced neoplasia ≥6 mm per-patient sensitivity, specificity, PPV and, NPV were 100% (86.7-100% 95% CI), 87.07% (83.6-89.9% 95% CI), 34.78% (25.3-45.5% 95% CI) and 100% (98.8-100% 95% CI), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this prospective trial, teleradiology-based CT colonography was accurate to screen a patient cohort of a remote island, at average risk for colorectal cancer.

Bowel preparation for CT colonography.

Bowel preparation represents an essential part of CT colonography, as the accuracy of the exam is strongly related to the adequacy of colonic cleansing, and a poor bowel preparation may compromise the diagnostic quality even despite optimization of all other acquisition parameters. Residual stool and fluid in the large bowel may affect the interpretation of the exam and may increase the number of false positives and false negatives. In this regard, the majority of patients having undergone CT colonography state that bowel preparation is the most unpleasant part. Unfortunately, to date no definite consensus has been reached about the ideal bowel preparation technique, and there is great variability in preparation strategies across diagnostic centers. The purpose of this review article is to describe the development and evolution of bowel preparation techniques in order to choose the best approach for optimizing the diagnostic quality of CT colonography in each patient.

The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography.

OBJECTIVE: To update quality standards for CT colonography based on consensus among opinion leaders within the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multinational European panel of nine members of the ESGAR CT colonography Working Group (representing six EU countries) used a modified Delphi process to rate their level of agreement on a variety of statements pertaining to the acquisition, interpretation and implementation of CT colonography. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, each at 2 months interval. RESULTS: The panel elaborated 86 statements. In the final round the panelists achieved complete consensus in 71 of 86 statements (82 %). Categories including the highest proportion of statements with excellent Cronbach's internal reliability were colon distension, scan parameters, use of intravenous contrast agents, general guidelines on patient preparation, role of CAD and lesion measurement. Lower internal reliability was achieved for the use of a rectal tube, spasmolytics, decubitus positioning and number of CT data acquisitions, faecal tagging, 2D vs. 3D reading, and reporting. CONCLUSION: The recommendations of the consensus should be useful for both the radiologist who is starting a CTC service and for those who have already implemented the technique but whose practice may need updating.

Evaluation of colonic lesions and pitfalls in CT colonography: a systematic approach based on morphology, attenuation and mobility.

Computed tomographic colonography is a reliable technique for the detection and classification of neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions of the colon. It is based on a thin-section CT dataset of the cleansed and air-distended colon, acquired in prone and supine position. Two-dimensional and 3D projections are used in combination for image interpretation. The evaluation of CT colonography datasets is based on two steps, lesion perception to detect a polyp candidate and image interpretation to correctly characterize colonic filling defects. A thorough knowledge of the morphologic and attenuation characteristics of common colonic lesions and artifacts facilitates characterization of the findings. The purpose of this review article is to give an overview of the key CT colonographic imaging criteria to correctly characterize common colorectal lesions and to identify typical pitfalls and pseudolesions.

Chronic diverticulitis vs. colorectal cancer: findings on CT colonography.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this update article is to evaluate findings on CT colonography in patients with chronic diverticulitis and to compare the findings in patients with colorectal carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Different morphological criteria retrieved from a literature review were retrospectively analyzed in a series of 13 patients with proven chronic diverticulitis. The findings were compared with a series of 10 patients with colorectal carcinoma. RESULTS: Overall, the findings in chronic diverticulitis resemble the findings in acute diverticulitis. The advantage of virtual CT colonography in differentiating both entities relies in the combination of morphological features previously described on axial computed tomography and double contrast barium enema. The single strongest morphological feature pointing towards the diagnosis of chronic diverticulitis is the presence of diverticula in the affected segment. In the presence of diverticula in the affected segment, a long segment (≥10 cm), thick fascia sign without adenopathies, mild bowel wall thickening, tapered margins, and distorted but preserved mucosal folds are likely to further improve accuracy of diagnosing chronic diverticulitis. CONCLUSION: The single strongest morphological sign to differentiate chronic diverticulitis from colorectal cancer is the presence of diverticula in the affected segment.

Effect of a tele-training programme on radiographers in the interpretation of CT colonography.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of radiographers in CT colonography (CTC) after a tele-training programme, supervised by 2 experienced radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five radiographers underwent training in CTC using a tele-training programme mainly based on the interpretation of 75 training cases performed in the novice department. To evaluate the educational performance, each radiographer was tested on 20 test cases with 27 lesions >6mm (12: 6-9 mm; 15: >10mm). Sensitivity, specificity and PPV for polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm were calculated with point estimates and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The results were compared by comparing 95% CI with a 5% significance level. RESULTS: In the training cases overall per-polyp sensitivity was 57% (95% CI 46.1-67.9) and 69.1% (95% CI 50.6-87.5) for lesions ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm, respectively. Overall per patient sensitivity, specificity and PPV were 86.4% (95% CI 76.7-96.1), 85.4% (95% CI 77-93.9) and 78.3% (95% CI 64.9-91.7), respectively. In the test cases overall per-polyp sensitivity was 80.7% (95% CI 69.5-92) and 94.7% (95% CI 85.6-100 ×) for lesions ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm, respectively. Overall per patient sensitivity, specificity and PPV were 92.9% (95% CI 83.1-100 ×), 64% (95% CI 13.1-100 ×) and 87.8% (95% CI 71.7-100 ×), respectively. There was a statistically significant improvement in per-polyp sensitivity for lesions ≥ 6 mm in the test cases. No statistically significant differences were found in per patient sensitivity, specificity and PPV, but there was an improvement. CONCLUSION: This training programme based on tele-training obtained good performance of radiographers in detecting tumoral lesions in CTC.

CT colonography: avoiding traps and pitfalls.

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a reliable technique for detecting tumoral lesions in the colon. However, good performance of polyp detection is only achieved if experienced CTC radiologists combine meticulous interpretation with state-of-the-art CTC technique. To reach this experience level, CTC training is mandatory. With a considerably long and steep learning curve, it has been demonstrated that in inexperienced hands both technical failure and observer errors stand for the majority of missed lesions. The purpose of this pictorial review is to give an overview of traps and pitfalls in CTC imaging resulting in false negative and positive findings, and how to avoid them by application of state-of-the-art CTC technique and interpretation.

CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software.

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the diagnostic performance and time efficiency of both second and concurrent computer-aided detection (CAD) reading paradigms for retrospectively obtained computed tomographic (CT) colonography data sets by using consensus reading (three radiologists) of colonoscopic findings as a reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ethical permission, HIPAA compliance (for U.S. institutions), and patient consent were obtained from all institutions for use of CT colonography data sets in this study. Ten radiologists each read 25 CT colonography data sets (12 men, 13 women; mean age, 61 years) containing 69 polyps (28 were 1-5 mm, 41 were >or=6 mm) by using workstations integrated with CAD software. Reading was randomized to either "second read" CAD (applied only after initial unassisted assessment) or "concurrent read" CAD (applied at the start of assessment). Data sets were reread 6 weeks later by using the opposing paradigm. Polyp sensitivity and reading times were compared by using multilevel logistic and linear regression, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated. RESULTS: Compared with the unassisted read, odds of improved polyp (>or=6 mm) detection were 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0, 2.2) and 1.3 (95% CI: 0.9, 1.9) by using CAD as second and concurrent reader, respectively. Detection odds by using CAD concurrently were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.59, 1.3) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.01) those of second read CAD, excluding and including polyps 1-5 mm, respectively. The concurrent read took 2.9 minutes (95% CI: -3.8, -1.9) less than did second read. The mean areas under the ROC curve (95% CI) for the unassisted read, second read CAD, and concurrent read CAD were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.87), 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.90), and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.92), respectively. CONCLUSION: CAD is more time efficient when used concurrently than when used as a second reader, with similar sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger. However, use of second read CAD maximizes sensitivity, particularly for smaller lesions.

Computer-aided detection of colonic polyps at CT colonography using a Hessian matrix-based algorithm: preliminary study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to develop a Hessian matrix-based computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithm for polyp detection on CT colonography (CTC) and to analyze its performance in a high-risk population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The CTC data sets of 35 patients with at least one colonoscopically proven polyp were interpreted with a Hessian matrix-based CAD algorithm, which was designed to depict bloblike structures protruding into the lumen. Our gold standard was a combination of segmental unblinded optical colonoscopy and retrospective unblinded consensus review by two radiologists. Sensitivity of CAD for polyp detection was evaluated on both per-polyp and per-patient bases. The average number of false-positive detections was calculated, and the causes of false-positives and false-negatives were analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety-four polyps were identified on colonoscopy. Forty-six polyps were smaller than 6 mm and 48 were 6 mm or larger. Seventy-five (79.8%) of these 94 polyps were identified by radiologists in a retrospective review. When colonoscopy was used as a standard of reference, the sensitivity of CAD was 77.1% for polyps 6 mm or larger. For large polyps (> or = 6 mm) that could be identified on retrospective review, the CAD algorithm achieved sensitivities of 92.5% (37/40) and 91.7% (22/24), respectively, on per-polyp and per-patient bases. There were an average of 5.5 false-positive detections per patient and 3.1 false-positive detections per data set for CAD. The two most frequent causes of false-positives on CAD were prominent or converging fold (78/191) and feces (50/191). Of the three polyps 6 mm or larger that were missed by CAD, two had a flat appearance on colonoscopy and the remaining one was located in the narrow area between the rectal tube and the rectal wall. CONCLUSION: A Hessian matrix-based CAD algorithm for CTC has the potential to depict polyps larger than or equal to 6 mm with high sensitivity and an acceptable false-positive rate.

Computed tomographic colonography: clinical value.

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) has the potential to reliably detect polyps in the colon. Its clinical value is accepted for several indications. The main target is screening asymptomatic people for colorectal cancer (CRC). As in large multi-centre trials controversial results were obtained, acceptance of this indication on a large scale is still pending. Agreement exists that in experienced hands screening can be performed with CTC. This emphasizes the importance of adequate and intensive training. Besides this, other problems have to be solved. A low complication profile is mandatory. Perforation rate is very low. Ultra-low dose radiation should be used. When screening large patient cohorts, CTC will need a time-efficient and cost-effective management without too many false positives and additional exploration. Can therefore a cut-off size of polyp detection safely be installed? Is the flat lesion an issue? Can extra-colonic findings be treated efficiently? A positive relationship with the gastro-enterologists will improve the act of screening. Improvements of scanning technique and software with dose reduction, improved 3D visualisation methods and CAD are steps in the good direction. Finally, optimisation of laxative-free CTC could be invaluable in the development of CTC as a screening tool for CRC.

CT colonography: visualization methods, interpretation, and pitfalls.

Virtual colonoscopy interpretation is improving rapidly with the development of efficient software using two-dimensional, three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal, and 3D novel views such as those that seem to cut the colon open and lay it flat for interpretation. Comparison of these various views, comparisons of supine and prone positioning, and comparisons of lung and soft tissue windows aid in the recognition of various pitfalls of interpretation.