Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automated volumetric analysis for comparison of oral sulfate solution (SUPREP) with established cathartic agents at CT colonography

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 28 April 2015

Abstract

Purpose

To objectively compare residual colonic fluid volume and attenuation of oral sulfate solution (OSS) with four different established cathartic regimens using an automated volumetric software tool at CT colonography (CTC).

Methods

This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval. Volumetric analysis of residual contrast-tagged colonic fluid was performed on CTC studies in 263 adults (mean age 60.1 years; 137M/126F) using an automated volumetric software tool. Twenty-three patients receiving 177 mL OSS (SUPREP; single-bottle purgation) were compared with 60 patients each receiving 45 mL sodium phosphate (NaP), 90 mL NaP (2× NaP), 592 mL (two bottles) magnesium citrate (MgC), and 4,000 mL polyethylene glycol (PEG). All patients received oral contrast cleansing after catharsis. Data were analyzed with unpaired t test with Welch correction and F test.

Results

The mean volume of residual colonic fluid was less with OSS (125 ± 60 mL) than for established cathartic agents: 2× NaP (206 ± 125 mL, P < 0.0001), MgC (184 ± 125 mL, P < 0.01), PEG (166 ± 114 mL, P < 0.05), and NaP (165 ± 135 mL, P = 0.067). Variance of volumes was also significantly lower for OSS (range 28–251 mL) than for established agents (range 4–853 mL) (all P < 0.01). Mean fluid attenuation was higher with OSS (956 ± 168 HU) than for established agents (all P < 0.05): 2× NaP (455 ± 191 HU), MgC (691 ± 154 HU), NaP (779 ± 127 HU), and PEG (843 ± 193 HU).

Conclusions

Automated volumetry allows rapid objective assessment of bowel preparation quality at CTC. Purgation with the novel oral sulfate solution (SUPREP) consistently resulted in less residual colonic fluid and higher fluid attenuation compared with established cathartic regimens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, et al. (2007) CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 357(14):1403–1412

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A, et al. (2007) Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography—the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer 109(11):2213–2221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hassan C, Pickhardt P, Laghi A, et al. (2008) Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm. Arch Intern Med 168(7):696–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349(23):2191–2200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. (2008) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359(12):1207–1217

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Seeff LC, Manninen DL, Dong FB, et al. (2004) Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States? Gastroenterology 127(6):1661–1669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schwartz DC, Dasher KJ, Said A, et al. (2008) Impact of a CT colonography screening program on endoscopic colonoscopy in clinical practice. Am J Gastroenterol 103:346–351. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01586.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pickhardt PJ (2013) Computed tomography colonography: emerging evidence to further support clinical effectiveness. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 29(1):55–59. doi:10.1097/MOG.0b013e32835a3480

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shapiro JA, Seeff LC, Thompson TD, et al. (2008) Colorectal cancer test use from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17(7):1623–1630. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2838

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Force USPST (2008) Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 149(9):627–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Maciosek MV, Solberg LI, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Goodman MJ (2006) Colorectal cancer screening: health impact and cost effectiveness. Am J Prev Med 31(1):80–89. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ 3rd (2002) A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 97(12):3186–3194. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.07129.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Beebe TJ, Johnson CD, Stoner SM, Anderson KJ, Limburg PJ (2007) Assessing attitudes toward laxative preparation in colorectal cancer screening and effects on future testing: potential receptivity to computed tomographic colonography. Mayo Clin Proc 82(6):666–671. doi:10.4065/82.6.666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pickhardt PJ (2007) Colonic preparation for computed tomographic colonography: understanding the relative advantages and disadvantages of a noncathartic approach. Mayo Clin Proc 82(6):659–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH (2010) CT colonography: principles and practice of virtual colonoscopy. Philadelphia: Saunders

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Hinshaw JL, et al. (2007) Prospective blinded trial comparing 45-mL and 90-mL doses of oral sodium phosphate for bowel preparation before computed tomographic colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31(1):53–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Berkelhammer C, Ekambaram A, Silva RG (2002) Low-volume oral colonoscopy bowel preparation: sodium phosphate and magnesium citrate. Gastrointest Endosc 56(1):89–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Markowitz GS, Stokes MB, Radhakrishnan J, D’Agati VD (2005) Acute phosphate nephropathy following oral sodium phosphate bowel purgative: an underrecognized cause of chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 16(11):3389–3396

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Borden ZS, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, et al. (2010) Bowel preparation for CT colonography: blinded comparison of magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate for catharsis. Radiology 254(1):138–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Macari M, Lavelle M, Pedrosa I, et al. (2001) Effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid at CT colonography. Radiology 218(1):274–277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vanner SJ, MacDonald PH, Paterson WG, et al. (1990) A randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate with standard polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution (Golytely) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 85(4):422–427

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Di Palma JA, Rodriguez R, McGowan J, Cleveland M (2009) A randomized clinical study evaluating the safety and efficacy of a new, reduced-volume, oral sulfate colon-cleansing preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 104(9):2275–2284. doi:10.1038/ajg.2009.389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rex DK, Di Palma JA, Rodriguez R, McGowan J, Cleveland M (2010) A randomized clinical study comparing reduced-volume oral sulfate solution with standard 4-liter sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solution as preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 72(2):328–336. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2010.03.1054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cohen SM, Wexner SD, Binderow SR, et al. (1994) Prospective, randomized, endoscopic-blinded trial comparing precolonoscopy bowel cleansing methods. Dis Colon Rectum 37(7):689–696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pickhardt PJ (2007) Screening CT colonography: how I do it. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(2):290–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JHR (2003) Electronic cleansing and stool tagging in CT colonography: advantages and pitfalls with primary three-dimensional evaluation. Am J Roentgenol 181(3):799–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Slater A, Taylor SA, Burling D, et al. (2006) Colonic polyps: effect of attenuation of tagged fluid and viewing window on conspicuity and measurement—in vitro experiment with porcine colonic specimen. Radiology 240(1):101–109. doi:10.1148/radiol.2401050984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Deshpande KK, Summers RM, Van Uitert RL, et al. (2007) Quality assessment for CT colonography: validation of automated measurement of colonic distention and residual fluid. Am J Roentgenol 189(6):1457–1463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Van Uitert RL, Summers RM, White JM, et al. (2008) Temporal and multiinstitutional quality assessment of CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191(5):1503–1508

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hung PW, Paik DS, Napel S, et al. (2002) Quantification of distention in CT colonography: development and validation of three computer algorithms. Radiology 222(2):543–554. doi:10.1148/radiol.2222010600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Park SH, Ha HK, Kim MJ, et al. (2005) False-negative results at multi-detector row CT colonography: multivariate analysis of causes for missed lesions. Radiology 235(2):495–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH (2013) CT Colonography: pitfalls in Interpretation. Radiol Clin N Am 51(1):69–88. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2012.09.005

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health NCI Grants 1R01CA144835-01 and 1R01CA169331-01.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA

    Peter Bannas, Joshua Bakke, James L. Patrick & Perry J. Pickhardt

  2. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Peter Bannas

Authors
  1. Peter Bannas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua Bakke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James L. Patrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Perry J. Pickhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Bannas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bannas, P., Bakke, J., Patrick, J.L. et al. Automated volumetric analysis for comparison of oral sulfate solution (SUPREP) with established cathartic agents at CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 40, 11–18 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0186-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0186-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation