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.

Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers?

The purpose of this study was to compare a primary uncleansed 2D and a primary electronically cleansed 3D reading strategy in CTC in limited prepped patients. Seventy-two patients received a low-fibre diet with oral iodine before CT-colonography. Six novices and two experienced observers reviewed both cleansed and uncleansed examinations in randomized order. Mean per-polyp sensitivity was compared between the methods by using generalized estimating equations. Mean per-patient sensitivity, and specificity were compared using the McNemar test. Results were stratified for experience (experienced observers versus novice observers). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices using cleansed 3D (65%; 95%CI 57-73%) compared with uncleansed 2D (51%; 95%CI 44-59%). For experienced observers there was no significant difference. Mean per-patient sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices as well: respectively 75% (95%CI 70-80%) versus 64% (95%CI 59-70%). For experienced observers there was no statistically significant difference. Specificity for both novices and experienced observers was not significantly different. For novices primary electronically cleansed 3D is better for polyp detection than primary uncleansed 2D.

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.