Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography

  • Gastrointestinal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the computed tomographic colonography (CTC) image quality and patient acceptance of three iodine-based faecal tagging bowel preparations in 60 patients undergoing the following regimens: a 2-day regimen of meal-time administration of iodine and phospho-soda (GFPH); a 2-day regimen of meal-time mild laxative, followed by iodine administered 2 h before CTC (SD); and a 2-day regimen of meal-time administration of iodine (GF).

Methods

Two independent radiologists assessed tagging quality; quantitative measures included the tagged stool density, and computer-aided detection (CAD) false-positive rate.

Results

The GFPH and SD regimens provided better subjective quality than GF (p < 0.001). The latter regimen resulted in a higher proportion of insufficiently tagged segments: the measured average stool density was less than 200 HU in 10.7% in all segments vs 3.6% for SD and <0.5% for GFPH, respectively. Insufficient tagging occurred mostly in the ascending colon and the caecum. The CAD false-positive rate increased following the trend: GFPH < SD < GF (p = 0.00012). GFPH was worse tolerated than SD (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Considering preparation quality alone, GFPH was the best regimen, but SD provided the best balance between bowel preparation quality and patient acceptability.

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. 2a–d
Fig. 3a, b
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 349:2191–2200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) 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 58:130–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 82:666–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J et al (2002) Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results-polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology 224:393–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gryspeerdt S, Lefere P, Herman M et al (2005) CT colonography with fecal tagging after incomplete colonoscopy. Eur Radiol 15:1192–1202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG et al (2001) CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology 219:693–698

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127:1300–1311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J et al (2005) CT colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1836–1842

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 31:53–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D et al (2002) Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol 12:1410–1415

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zalis ME, Perumpillichira J, Magee C (2006) Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 239:149–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Neri E, Turini F, Cerri F, Vagli P, Bartolozzi C (2008) CT colonography: same-day tagging regimen with iodixanol and reduced cathartic preparation. Abdom Imaging. doi:10.1007/s00261-008-9453-z

  16. Taylor SA, Slater A, Burling DN et al (2008) CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol 18:32–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K (1990) Adverse reactions to ionic and non ionic contrast media: a report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology 175:621–628

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Skucas J (1997) Anaphylactoid reactions with gastrointestinal contrast media. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:962–964

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Taylor SA, Laghi A, Lefere P, Halligan S, Stoker J (2007) European society of gastrointestinal and abdominal radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:575–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zalis ME, Perumpillichira J, Del Frate C, Hahn PF (2003) CT Colonography: digital subtraction bowel cleansing with mucosal reconstruction—initial observations. Radiology 226:911–917

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D et al (2008) Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amount of mild laxatives for CT colonography. Am J Roentgenol 191:158–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Slater A, Taylor SA, Burling D et al (2006) Colonic polyps: effect of attenuation of tagged fluid and viewing windows on conspicuity and measurement—in vitro experiment with porcine colonic specimen. Radiology 240:101–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yoshida H, Nappi J (2007) CAD in CT colonography without and with oral contrast agents: progress and challenges. Comput Med Imaging Graph 31:267–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Delsanto S, Morra L, Agliozzo S et al (2008) Computer aided detection of polyps in virtual colonoscopy with sameday faecal tagging. Proc SPIE Medical Imaging 6915-28

  25. Chan Y, Walmsley RP (1997) Learning and understanding the Kruskal-Wallis One-way analysis-of-variance-by-ranks test for differences among three or more independent groups. Phys Ther 77:1755–1761

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sprent P, Smeeton NC (2001) Applied nonparametric statistical methods, 3rd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kundel HL, Polansky M (2003) Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 228:303–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Campanella D, Morra L, Delsanto S, Gallo TM, Tartaglia V, Regge D (2008) Quantitative quality assessment of different faecal tagging (FT) CT colonography (CTC) preparations. Eur Radiol 18(Suppl 1):B-363

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank im3D S.p.A. (Torino, Italy) for providing viewing software, technical support and statistical consultancy for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology Unit, Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment, Strada Provinciale 142, Km 3,95, 10060, Candiolo, Italy

    Delia Campanella & Daniele Regge

  2. im3D S.p.A., Via Lessolo 3, 10153, Turin, Italy

    Lia Morra, Silvia Delsanto & Alberto Bert

  3. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56100, Pisa, Italy

    Emanuele Neri

  4. Presidio Ospedaliero Riunito Ciriè, ASL 4 Torino, via Battitore 7/9, Ciriè, Italy

    Vincenzo Tartaglia

  5. Radiologia, Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri, IRCCS, Istituto Scientifico di Veruno, Via per Revislate 13, 28010, Veruno, NO, Italy

    Roberto Asnaghi

Authors
  1. Delia Campanella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lia Morra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silvia Delsanto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vincenzo Tartaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roberto Asnaghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alberto Bert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emanuele Neri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Daniele Regge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Delsanto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Campanella, D., Morra, L., Delsanto, S. et al. Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography. Eur Radiol 20, 348–358 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1553-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1553-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation