Computed Tomography Colonography (Virtual Colonoscopy): Climax of a New Era of Validation and Transition into Community Practice

ABSTRACT

Colorectal cancer, which kills more than 50,000 patients every year in the United States and costs more than $6 billion in direct health costs, is a prime target for cancer prevention. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) has emerged as a minimally invasive, structural examination of the entire colon that can complement the current tools of cancer prevention and may improve patient compliance. Large trials have suggested a sensitivity of roughly 90% and specificity greater than 97% for CTC for patients with polyps ≥ 10 mm. Bowel preparation by diet restriction, catharsis, and stool and fluid tagging are typically used. A prepless CTC protocol is an active area of research with a focus on improving patient compliance. Insurance coverage of CTC is a key factor affecting current dissemination and local and national coverage decisions are ongoing. CT examination of the abdomen allows visualization of extracolonic organs, where detection of additional disease must balance any unnecessary anxiety and testing. Estimates of CTC cost-effectiveness are generally favorable, but vary due to the high sensitivity of these models to costs, polyp sensitivity, compliance rates, and other parameters, which are difficult to accurately assess. Quality initiatives are being developed that will be key for implementation into community practice.

KEYWORDS

Colorectal cancer - virtual colonoscopy - computed tomography colonography - prevention - screening

REFERENCES

• 1 Parkin D M, Pisani P, Ferlay J. Global cancer statistics.  CA Cancer J Clin. 1999;  49 33-64
• 2 Hawk E T, Levin B. Colorectal cancer prevention.  J Clin Oncol. 2005;  10;23(2) 378-391
• 3 Schrag D, Weeks J. Costs and cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer prevention and therapy.  Semin Oncol. 1999;  26(5) 561-568
• 4 Burt R W. Colon cancer screening.  Gastroenterology. 2000;  119(3) 837-853
• 5 Jass J R. Colon cancer: the shape of things to come.  Gut. 1999;  45(6) 794-795
• 6 Vijan S, Hwang I, Inadomi J et al.. The cost-effectiveness of CT colonography in screening for colorectal neoplasia.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;  102(2) 380-390
• 7 Levin B, Lieberman D A, McFarland B et al.. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-society task force on colorectal cancer, and the American College of Radiology.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;  58 130-160
• 8 Akerkar G A, Yee J, Hung R, McQuaid K. Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  54 310-315
• 9 Gluecker T M, Johnson C D, Harmsen W S et al.. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences.  Radiology. 2003;  227 378-384
• 10 Ristvedt S L, McFarland E G, Weinstock L B, Thyssen E P. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;  98 578-585
• 11 Svensson M H, Svensson E, Lasson A, Helstrom M. Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease.  Radiology. 2002;  222 337-345
• 12 Lefere P A, Gryspeerdt S S, Dewyspelaere J, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeek B G. Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results—polyp detection and patient acceptance.  Radiology. 2002;  224 393-403
• 13 Zalis M E, Perumpillichira J, Del Frate C, Hahn P F. CT colonography: digital subtraction bowel cleansing with mucosal reconstruction—initial observation.  Radiology. 2003;  226 911-917
• 14 Pickhardt P J, Choi J H. Electronic cleansing and stool tagging in CT colonography: advantages and pitfalls with primary three-dimensional evaluation.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;  181 799-805
• 15 Zalis M E, Perumpillichira J J, Magee C, Kohlberg G, Hahn P F. Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability.  Radiology. 2006;  239 149-159
• 16 O'Connor S D, Summer R M, Choi J R, Pickhardt P J. Oral contrast adherence to polyps on CT colonography.  J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006;  30 51-57
• 17 Callstrom M R, Johnson C D, Fletcher J G et al.. CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study.  Radiology. 2001;  219 693-698
• 18 Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalono C et al.. Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps.  Gastroenterology. 2004;  127 1300-1311
• 19 Shinners T J, Pickhardt P J, Taylor A J, Jones D A, Olsen C H. Patient-controlled room air insufflation versus automated carbon dioxide delivery for CT colonography.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;  186 1491-1496
• 20 Burling D, Taylor S A, Halligan S et al.. Automated insufflations of carbon dioxide for MDCT colonography: distention and patient experience compared with manual insufflation.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;  189 96-103
• 21 Chen S C, Lu D S, Hecht J R, Kadell B M. CT colonography: value of scanning in both the supine and prone positions.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;  172 595-599
• 22 Yee J, Kumar N N, Hung R K, Akerkar G A, Kumar P R, Wall S D. Comparison of supine and prone scanning separately and in combination with CT colonography.  Radiology. 2003;  226 653-661
• 23 Pickhardt P J. The incidence of colonic perforation at CT colonography: review of the existing data and the implications for screening of asymptomatic adults.  Radiology. 2006;  239 313-316
• 24 Sosna J, Blachar A, Amitai M et al.. Colonic perforation at CT colonography: assessment of risk in a multi-center large cohort.  Radiology. 2006;  239 457-463
• 25 Burling D, Halligan S, Slater A, Noakes M, Taylor S A. Potentially serious adverse events associated with CT colonography performed in symptomatic patients: a national survey of the UK.  Radiology. 2006;  239 464-471
• 26 Blakeborough A, Sheridan M B, Chapman A H. Complications of barium enema examinations: a survey of UK consultant radiologists 1992 to 1994.  Clin Radiol. 1997;  52 142-148
• 27 Anderson M L, Pasha T M, Leighton J A. Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons learned from a ten year study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;  95 3418-3422
• 28 Gatto N M, Frucht H, Sundararajan V, Jacobson J S, Grann V R, Neugut A I. Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;  95 230-236
• 29 Levin T R, Zhao W, Conell C et al.. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system.  Ann Intern Med. 2006;  145 880-886
• 30 Macari M, Bini E J, Xue X et al.. Prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multislice CT colonography to conventional colonoscopy in detecting colorectal polyps and cancers.  Radiology. 2002;  224 383-392
• 31 Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al.. Detection of colorectal lesions: lower-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy.  Radiology. 2003;  229 775-781
• 32 Van Gelder R E, Venema H W, Florie J et al.. CT colonography: feasibility of substantial dose reduction- comparison of medium to low doses in identical patients.  Radiology. 2004;  232 611-620
• 33 Cohnen M, Vogt C, Beck A et al.. Feasibility of MDCT colonography in ultra-low-dose technique in the detection of colorectal lesions: comparison with high-resolution video colonoscopy.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;  183 1355-1359
• 34 Kalra M K, Maher M M, Toth T L, Kamath R S, Halpern E F, Saini S. Comparison of z-axis automatic tube current modulation technique with fixed tube current CT scanning of abdomen and pelvis.  Radiology. 2004;  232 347-353
• 35 Brenner D J, Georgsson M A. Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern?.  Gastroenterology. 2005;  129 328-337
• 36 Amis Jr E S, Butler P F, Applegate K E et al.. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine.  J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;  4 272-284
• 37 McFarland E G. How to interpret the data sets?. In: LeFere P, Gryspeerdt S Virtual Colonoscopy: A Practical Guide. New York/Heidelberg/Berlin; Springer-Verlag 2005: 73-86
• 38 Knechtges P M, McFarland B G, Keysor K J, Duszak Jr R, Barish M A, Carlos R C. National and local trends in CT colonography reimbursement: past, present, and future.  J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;  4 776-799
• 39 Pickhardt P J, Taylor A J, Kim D H, Reichelderfer M, Gopal D V, Pfau P R. Screening for colorectal neoplasia with CT colonography: initial experience from the first year of coverage by third-party payers.  Radiology. 2006;  241 417-425
• 40 Hara A K, Johnson C D, Reed J E et al.. Detection of colorectal polyps with CT colonography: initial assessment of sensitivity and specificity.  Radiology. 1997;  205 59-65
• 41 Fenlon H M, Nunes D P, Schroy III P C, Barish M A, Clarke P D, Ferrucci J T. A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.  N Engl J Med. 1999;  341 1496-1503
• 42 Yee J, Akerkar G A, Hung R K, Steinauer-Gebauer A M, Wall S D, McQuaid K R. Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients.  Radiology. 2001;  219 685-692
• 43 Fletcher J G, Johnson C D, Welch T J et al.. Optimization of CT colonography technique:prospective trial in 180 patients.  Radiology. 2000;  216 704-711
• 44 McFarland E G, Pilgram T K, Brink J A et al.. Multi-observer diagnostic performance of CT colonography: factors influencing diagnostic-accuracy assessment.  Radiology. 2002;  225 380-390
• 45 Pineau B C, Paskett E D, Chen G J et al.. Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps.  Gastroenterology. 2003;  125 304-310
• 46 Macari M, Bini E J, Jacobs S L et al.. Colorectal polyps and cancers in asymptomatic average-risk patients: evaluation with CT colonography.  Radiology. 2004;  230 629-636
• 47 Johnson C D, Harmsen W S, Wilson L A et al.. Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps.  Gastroenterology. 2003;  125 311-319
• 48 Cotton P B, Durkalski V L, Pineau B C et al.. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia.  JAMA. 2004;  291 1713-1719
• 49 Rockey D C, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D et al.. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison.  Lancet. 2005;  365 305-311
• 50 Fidler J L, Johnson C D, MacCarty R L, Welch T J, Hara A K, Harmsen W S. Detection of flat lesions in the colon with CT colonography.  Abdom Imaging. 2002;  27 292-300
• 51 Pickhardt P J, Nugent P A, Choi J R, Schindler W R. Flat colorectal lesions in asymptomatic adults: implications for screening with CT virtual colonoscopy.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;  183 1343-1347
• 52 Mulhall B P, Veerappan G R, Jackson J L. Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography.  Ann Intern Med. 2005;  142 635-650
• 53 Halligan S, Altman D G, Taylor S A et al.. CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting.  Radiology. 2005;  237 893-904
• 54 Pickhardt P J, Choi J R, Hwang I et al.. CT virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.  N Engl J Med. 2003;  349 2191-2200
• 55 Pickhardt P J, Nugent P A, Mysliwiec P A, Choi J R, Schindler W R. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy.  Ann Intern Med. 2004;  141 352-359
• 56 Graser A, Kolligs F T, Kramer H, Reiser M F, Becker C. Results from the “Munich Colorectal Cancer Prevention Trial”: comparison of low-dose 64-MDCT colonography and video colonoscopy in a screening population (abstr). Abstract presented at: 2006 RSNA Scientific Assembly November 27–December 1, 2006 Chicago, IL;
• 57 Cash B D, Kim C H, Cullen P A et al.. Accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in asymptomatic, average risk individuals.  Gastroenterology. 2006;  130 A-46 (# 278)
• 58 Regge D. Accuracy of CT colonography in subjects at increased risk of colorectal carcinoma: a multi-center trial of 1,000 patients. Presented at the Radiology Society of North America, Chicago Illinois, November 26, 2007; page 337
• 59 Kim D H, Pickhardt P J, Taylor A J et al.. CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia.  N Engl J Med. 2007;  357 1403-1412
• 60 Pickhardt P J, Taylor A J. Extracolonic findings identified in asymptomatic adults at screening CT colonography.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;  186 718-728
• 61 Rajapaksa R C, Macari M, Bini E J. Prevalence and impact of extracolonic findings in patients undergoing CT colonography.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 2004;  38 767-771
• 62 Pickhardt P J, Choi J R, Hwang I et al.. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.  N Engl J Med. 2003;  349 2191-2200
• 63 Gluecker T M, Johnson C D, Wilson L A et al.. Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population.  Gastroenterology. 2003;  124 911-916
• 64 Yee J, Kumar N N, Godara S et al.. Extracolonic abnormalities discovered incidentally at CT colonography in a male population.  Radiology. 2005;  236 519-526
• 65 Chin M, Mendelson R, Edwards J, Foster N, Forbes G. Computed tomographic colonography: prevalence, nature, and clinical significance of extracolonic findings in a community screening program.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;  100 2771-2776
• 66 Hara A K, Johnson C D, MacCarty R L, Welch T J. Incidental extracolonic findings at CT colonography.  Radiology. 2000;  215 353-357
• 67 Edwards J T, Wood C J, Mendelson R M, Forbes G M. Extracolonic findings at virtual colonoscopy: implications for screening programs.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;  96 3009-3012
• 68 Khan K Y, Xiong T, McCafferty I et al.. Frequency and impact of extracolonic findings detected at computed tomographic colonography in a symptomatic population.  Br J Radiol. 2007;  94 355-361
• 69 Xiong T, McEvoy K, Morton D G, Halligan S, Lilford R J. Resources and costs associated with incidental extracolonic findings from CT colonography: a study in a symptomatic population.  Br J Radiol. 2006;  79 948-961
• 70 Spreng A, Netzer P, Mattich J, Dinkel H P, Vock P, Hoppe H. Importance of extracolonic findings at IV contrast medium-enhanced CT colonography versus those at non-enhanced CT colonography.  Eur Radiol. 2005;  15 2088-2095
• 71 Hellstrom M, Svensson M H, Lasson A. Extracolonic and incidental findings on CT colonography(virtual colonoscopy).  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;  182 631-638
• 72 Hara A K. Extracolonic findings at CT colonography.  Semin Ultrasound, CT, MR. 2005;  26 24-27
• 73 Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky A S, Tugwell P X. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations.  Can Med Assoc J. 1992;  146 473-481
• 74 Heitman S J, Manns B J, Hilsden R J, Fong A, Dean S, Romagnuolo J. Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.  CMAJ. 2005;  173(8) 877-881
• 75 Hassan C, Zullo A, Laghi A et al.. Colon cancer prevention in Italy: cost-effectiveness analysis with CT colonography and endoscopy.  Dig Liver Dis. 2007;  39(3) 242-250
• 76 Vijan S, Hwang I, Inadomi J et al.. The cost-effectiveness of CT colonography in screening for colorectal neoplasia.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;  102(2) 380-390
• 77 Woolf S A. Screening for colorectal cancer. In: Sox H Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. 2nd ed. Baltimore; Williams & Wilkins 1996: 89-103
• 78 Winawer S J, Fletcher R H, Miller L et al.. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale.  Gastroenterology. 1997;  112 594-642
• 79 Smith R A, von Eschenbach A C, Wender R et al.. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;  51 38-75
• 80 Pickhardt P J, Hassan C, Laghi A, Zullo A, Kim D H, Morini S. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions.  Cancer. 2007;  109(11) 2213-2221
• 81 American College of Radiology .ACR Practice Guideline for the Performance of Computed Tomography (CT) Colonography in Adults. Chicago, IL; American College of Radiology 2006
• 82 Zalis M E, Barish M A, Choi J R et al.. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal.  Radiology. 2005;  236 3-9
• 83 Moravec M, Lieberman D A, Holub J, Michaels L, Eisen G M. Rate of advanced pathologic features in 6–9 mm polyps in patients referred for colonoscopy screening.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;  65 AB 127
• 84 Kim D H, Pickhardt P J, Taylor A J. Characteristics of advanced adenomas detected at CT colonographic screening: implications for appropriate polyp size thresholds for polypectomy versus surveillance.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;  188 940-944
• 85 Levin T R, Zhao W, Conell C et al.. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system.  Ann Intern Med. 2006;  145 880-886
• 86 van Dam J, Cotton P, Johnson C D et al.. AGA future trends report: CT colonography.  Gastroenterology. 2004;  127 970-984
• 87 Rockey D C, Barish M, Brill J V et al.. Standards for gastroenterologists for performing and interpreting diagnostic computed tomographic colonography.  Gastroenterology. 2007;  133 1005-1024
• 88 Rex D K, Lieberman D. ACG colorectal cancer prevention action plan: update on CT-colonography.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 1410-1413
• 89 Lieberman D. A call to action–measuring the quality of colonoscopy.  N Engl J Med. 2006;  355 2588-2589