Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Decreased-Purgation CT Colonography: State of the Art

  • Published:
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Abstract

In the setting of CT colonography (CTC), decreasing bowel preparation measures may help to optimize colorectal cancer screening compliance without compromising accuracy. Decreased-purgation or wholly noncathartic CTC, known as nonconventional CTC, may be accomplished in conjunction with fecal tagging. Image post-processing technologies such as electronic cleansing and computer-aided detection may boost accuracy and decrease the need for bowel preparation even further. We review pre-study preparation and image post-processing techniques that have been described in nonconventional-preparation CTC studies over the past 10 years. We explore in detail specific aspects of nonconventional cathartic and fecal tagging regimens, including substance, dose, and time frame of ingestion.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. American Cancer Society, Cancer facts and figures 2009. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/500809webpdf.pdf. Accessed Oct 7, 2010.

  2. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Colorectal (colon) cancer-screening rates. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/CANCER/colorectal/statistics/screening_rates.htm.

  3. Florie J, van Gelder RE, Schutter MP, et al.: Feasibility study of computed tomography colonography using limited bowel preparation at normal and low-dose levels study. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(12):3112–3122.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, 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(2):378–384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al.: Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(5):1300–1311.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. •• Jensch S, de Vries AH, Peringa J, et al.: CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population. Radiology. 2008:247(1):122–132. This is a relatively large prospective study demonstrating diagnostic accuracy comparable to historical full-purgation CTC, and greater patient preference for limited-purgation CTC as compared to OC.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D, et al.: Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(1):158–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. •• Mahgerefteh S, Fraifeld S, Blachar A, Sosna J: CT colonography with decreased purgation: balancing preparation, performance, and patient acceptance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(6):1531–1539. This is an in-depth review of studies prospectively comparing nonconventional CTC to OC for diagnostic performance and patient preference.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lin OS: Computed tomographic colonography: hope or hype? World J Gastroenterol. 16(8):915–920.

  10. Park SH, Yee J, Kim SH, Kim YH: Fundamental elements for successful performance of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Korean J Radiol. 2007;8(4):264–275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. •• Johnson CD, Manduca A, Fletcher JG, et al.: Noncathartic CT colonography with stool tagging: performance with and without electronic stool subtraction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008, Feb;190(2):361–366. This is a relatively large noncathartic CTC study with electronic cleansing, demonstrating high diagnostic accuracy in a prospective comparison with OC.

  12. Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J, et al.: Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology. 2002;224(2):393–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, Gouw CI, et al.: CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(2):367–376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. •• Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, van Rijn AF, et al.: CT colonography with limited bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in an FOBT positive screening population. Abdom Imaging. 2009. This article demonstrates the high diagnostic accuracy of noncathartic CTC as compared with OC in a relatively large asymptomatic population.

  15. Nagata K, Okawa T, Honma A, et al.: Full-laxative versus minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CT colonography using 64-detector row CT: prospective blinded comparison of diagnostic performance, tagging quality, and patient acceptance. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(7):780–789.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Taylor SA, Iinuma G, Saito Y, et al.: CT colonography: computer-aided detection of morphologically flat T1 colonic carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(8):1666–1673.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zalis ME, Perumpillichira J, Del Frate C, Hahn PF: CT colonography: digital subtraction bowel cleansing with mucosal reconstruction initial observations. Radiology. 2003;226(3):911–917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A, et al.: Small and diminutive polyps detected at screening CT colonography: a decision analysis for referral to colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(1):136–144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al.: Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. 2003;124(2):544–560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Levin B, Lieberman DA, 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(3):130–160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sosna J, Morrin MM, Kruskal JB, et al.: CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(6):1593–1598.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Taylor SA, Laghi A, Lefere P, et al.: European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(2):575–579.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Taylor SA, Slater A, Burling DN, et al.: CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(1):32–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, et al.: CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology. 2001;219(3):693–698.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dachman AH, Dawson DO, Lefere P, et al.: Comparison of routine and unprepped CT colonography augmented by low fiber diet and stool tagging: a pilot study. Abdom Imaging. 2007;32(1):96–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Johnson KT, Carston MJ, Wentz RJ, et al.: Development of a cathartic-free colorectal cancer screening test using virtual colonoscopy: a feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(1):W29–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Näppi J, Yoshida H: Virtual tagging for laxative-free CT colonography: pilot evaluation. Med Phys. 2009;36(5):1830–1838.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yoon SH, Kim SH, Kim SG, et al.: Comparison study of different bowel preparation regimens and different fecal-tagging agents on tagging efficacy, patients’ compliance, and diagnostic performance of computed tomographic colonography: preliminary study. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33(5):657–665.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Summers R: The elephant in the room: bowel preparation for CT colonography. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(7):777–779.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP: Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(3):578–585.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Adams WJ, Meagher AP, Lubowski DZ, King DW: Bisacodyl reduces the volume of polyethylene glycol solution required for bowel preparation. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;37(3):229–233. discussion 233–224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Neri E, Turini F, Cerri F, et al.: CT colonography: same-day tagging regimen with iodixanol and reduced cathartic preparation. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34(5):642–647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Regev A, Fraser G, Delpre G, et al.: Comparison of two bowel preparations for colonoscopy: sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate versus sulphate-free polyethylene glycol lavage solution. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93(9):1478–1482.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E, Dube C, et al.: A randomized prospective trial comparing different regimens of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64(4):544–552.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gutierrez-Santiago M, Garcia-Unzueta M, Amado JA, et al.: Electrolyte disorders following colonic cleansing for imaging studies. Med Clin (Barc). 2006;126(5):161–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wexner SD, Beck DE, Baron TH, et al.: A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(6):792–809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al.: Optimization of multidetector row CT colonography (MDCTC) without cathartic preparation: comparison of different dosages of diatrizoate meglumine and datrizoate sodium as fecal tagging agent. Presented at The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). Chicago IL, 2004.

  38. Diederichs G, Franiel T, Asbach P, et al.: Oral administration of intravenous contrast media: a tasty alternative to conventional oral contrast media in computed tomography. Rofo. 2007;179(10):1061–1067.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Quagliano PV, Austin RF Jr: Oral contrast agents for CT: a taste test survey. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997;21(5):720–722.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cumberland DC: Optimum viscosity of barium suspension for use in the double contrast barium meal. Gastrointest Radiol. 1977;2(2):169–174.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Slater A, Planner A, Bungay HK, et al.: Three-day regimen improves faecal tagging for minimal preparation CT examination of the colon. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(979):545–548.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ng CS, Doyle TC, Pinto EM, et al.: Evaluation of CT in identifying colorectal carcinoma in the frail and disabled patient. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(12):2988–2997.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Giuliani A, Caporale A, Corona M, et al.: Large size, villous content and distal location are associated with severe dysplasia in colorectal adenomas. Anticancer Res. 2006;26(5):3717–3722.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nagata K, Singh AK, Sangwaiya MJ, et al.: Comparative evaluation of the fecal-tagging quality in CT colonography: barium vs. iodinated oral contrast agent. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(11):1393–1399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ, et al.: Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology. 2000;216(3):704–711.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. O’Connor SD, Summers RM, Choi JR, Pickhardt PJ: Oral contrast adherence to polyps on CT colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006;30(1):51–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Morson B: President’s address. The polyp-cancer sequence in the large bowel. Proc R Soc Med. 1974;67(6 Pt 1):451–457.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Park SH, Ha HK, Kim AY, et al.: Flat polyps of the colon: detection with 16-MDCT colonography--preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(6):1611–1617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Pickhardt PJ: CT colonography without catharsis: the ultimate study or useful additional option? Gastroenterology. 2005;128(2):521–522. author reply 522–523.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Cai W, Yoshida H, Zalis ME, et al.: Informatics in radiology: Electronic cleansing for noncathartic CT colonography: a structure-analysis scheme. Radiographics. 2010;30(3):585–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Eliahou R, Azraq Y, Carmi R, et al.: Dual-energy based spectral electronic cleansing in non-cathartic computed tomography colonography: an emerging novel technique. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2010;31(4):309–314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Baker ME, Bogoni L, Obuchowski NA, et al.: Computer-aided detection of colorectal polyps: can it improve sensitivity of less-experienced readers? Preliminary findings. Radiology. 2007, 245(1):140–149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Summers RM, Yao J, Pickhardt PJ, et al.: Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population. Gastroenterology. 2005;129(6):1832–1844.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. •• Yoshida H, Näppi J: CAD in CT colonography without and with oral contrast agents: progress and challenges. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2007;31(4–5):267–284. This is an in-depth review of computer-aided detection techniques in conventional and nonconventional CTC examinations.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, POB 12000, Jerusalem, Israel, 91120

    Shmuel Y. Mahgerefteh, Shifra Fraifeld & Jacob Sosna

  2. Department of Radiology, Tel Aviv, Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Arye Blachar

  3. Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    Jacob Sosna

Authors
  1. Shmuel Y. Mahgerefteh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arye Blachar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shifra Fraifeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jacob Sosna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob Sosna.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mahgerefteh, S.Y., Blachar, A., Fraifeld, S. et al. Decreased-Purgation CT Colonography: State of the Art. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 7, 71–79 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-010-0085-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-010-0085-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation