Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CTC Controversies (Radiation Exposure, Extracolonic Findings, Cost-Effectiveness)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Computerized Tomographic Colonography

  • 953 Accesses

Abstract

CT colonography (CTC) is now in its mature stage. The technique has been consistently standardized [1], different multicenter trials [2–5] and meta-analysis [6] have confirmed the high accuracy in detecting cancer and significant polyps, CTC has completely replaced barium enema in many institutions worldwide, because of its superior diagnostic capability [7], and different indications for its use in current clinical practice have been defined with the agreement of gastroenterologists. CTC is now considered the method of choice to investigate the colon in cases of incomplete colonoscopy (OC) [8] and also in elderly and frail patients [9, 10], where the use of OC might be too risky. Moreover, according to the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines released in March 2008 by a multidisciplinary joint commission of the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (comprising three gastroenterology societies), and the American College of Radiology, CTC is also considered one of the preferred CRC screening tests for asymptomatic, average-risk individuals [11]. Unfortunately, especially when the discussion comes to the topic of CRC screening, the debate about the possible use of CTC remains. Other scientific entities, such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) [12], the Asia Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer [13], and the American College of Gastroenterology [14], consider the evidence still insufficient to recommend CTC as a preferred CRC screening test and raise some concerns related to its potential harms. Those concerns were also at the basis of the 2009 decision of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) to not provide reimbursement for screening CTC [15].

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Taylor SA, Laghi A, Lefere P, et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:575–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1207–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of advanced neoplasia in individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2009;301:2453–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D, et al. Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut. 2009;58:241–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Halligan S, Lilford RJ, Wardle J, et al. Design of a multicentre randomized trial to evaluate CT colonography versus colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colonic cancer in older symptomatic patients: the SIGGAR study. Trials. 2007;8:32–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chaparro M, Gisbert JP, del Campo L, et al. Accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of polyps and colorectal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Digestion. 2009;80:1–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sosna J, Sella T, Sy O, et al. Critical analysis of the performance of double-contrast barium enema for detecting colorectal polyps ≥6 mm in the era of CT colonography. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:374–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. AGA Clinical Practice and Economics Committee. Position of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute on computed tomographic colonography. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1627–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Iafrate F, Hassan C, Zullo A, et al. CT colonography with reduced bowel preparation after incomplete colonoscopy in the elderly. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1385–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Keeling AN, Slattery MM, Leong S, et al. Limited-preparation CT colonography in frail elderly patients: a feasibility study. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1279–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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;58:130–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:627–37.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sung JJ, Lau JY, Young GP, et al. Asia Pacific consensus recommendations for colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 2008;57:1166–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:739–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mitka M. Virtual colonoscopy dealt set back with rejection for coverage by medicare. JAMA. 2009;301:1327–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Brenner DJ, Georgsson MA. Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology. 2005;129:328–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Amis ES. CT radiation dose: trending in the right direction. Radiology. 2011;261:5–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, et al. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology. 2009;251:6–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, et al. The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology. 2009;251:13–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Health Physics Society (HPS), editor. Ionizing radiation-safety standards for the general public: Position Statement of the Health Physics Society. McLean: Health Physics Society; 2003. p. 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D, et al. Dose–effect relationships and the estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. Academy of Medicine (Paris) and Academy of Science (Paris) Joint Report No. 2, 30 Mar 2005

    Google Scholar 

  22. National Research Council, Committee to assess health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. Health risks from low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006

    Google Scholar 

  23. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. Publication 99. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  24. van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Florie J, et al. CT colonography: feasibility of substantial dose reduction–comparison of medium to very low doses in identical patients. Radiology. 2004;232:611–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Serlie IW, et al. CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction. Radiology. 2002;224:25–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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;229:775–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jensch S, van Gelder RE, Venema HW, et al. Effective radiation doses in CT colonography: results of an inventory among research institutions. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:981–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Liedenbaum MH, Venema HW, Stoker J. Radiation dose in CT colonography—trends in time and differences between daily practice and screening protocols. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2222–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Neri E, Halligan S, Hellstrom M, et al. (2012) The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2012 Sep. 15 [Epub ahead of print].

    Google Scholar 

  30. Thorne MC. Background radiation: natural and man-made. J Radiol Prot. 2003;23:29–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. May MS, Wüst W, Brand M, et al. Dose reduction in abdominal computed tomography: intraindividual comparison of image quality of full-dose standard and half-dose iterative reconstructions with dual-source computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:465–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:713–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Flicek KT, Hara AK, Silva AC, et al. Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: A pilot study. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:126–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Berrington de González A, Kim KP, Knudsen AB, et al. Radiation-related cancer risks from CT colonography screening: a risk-benefit analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:816–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:1624–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hammer GP, Blettner M, Zeeb H. Epidemiological studies of cancer in aircrew. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2009;136:232–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Zeeb H, Blettner M, Langner I, et al. Mortality from cancer and other causes among airline cabin attendants in Europe: a collaborative cohort study in eight countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:35–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Guerins S, Richard G, Biau A, et al. Cancer mortality among French nuclear contract workers. Am J Ind Med. 2009;52:916–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jeong M, Jin YW, Yang KH, Ann YO, Cha CY. Radiation exposure and cancer incidence in a cohort of nuclear power industry workers in the Republic of Korea, 1992–2005. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2010;49:47–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bagshaw M. Cosmic radiation in commercial aviation. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2008;6:125–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ginnerup Pedersen B, Rosenkilde M, Christiansen TE, et al. Extracolonic findings at computed tomography colonography are a challenge. Gut. 2003;52:1744–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Pickhardt PJ, Hanson ME, Vanness DJ, et al. Unsuspected extracolonic findings at screening CT colonography: clinical and economic impact. Radiology. 2008;249:151–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Berland LL. Incidental extracolonic findings on CT colonography: the impending deluge & its implications. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:14–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hara AK, Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, et al. Incidental extracolonic findings at CT colonography. Radiology. 2000;215:353–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Wilson LA, et al. Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:911–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rajapaksa R, Macari M, Bini EJ. Prevalence and impact of extracolonic findings in patients undergoing CT colonography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:S111–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Edwards JT, Wood CJ, Mendelson RM, et al. Extracolonic findings at virtual colonoscopy: implications for screening programs. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:3009–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Yee J, Kumar NN, Godara S, et al. Extracolonic abnormalities discovered incidentally at CT colonography in a male population. Radiology. 2005;236:519–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology. 2005;236:3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston: Auflage; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yee J, Sadda S, Aslam R, Yeh B. Extracolonic findings at CT colonography. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2010;20:305–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ. Extracolonic findings identified in asymptomatic adults at screening CT Colonography. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:718–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Spreng A, Netzer P, Mattich J, et al. Importance of extracolonic findings at IV contrast medium-enhanced CT colonography versus those at non-enhanced CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:2088–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Siddiki H, Fletcher JG, McFarland B, et al. Incidental findings in CT Colonography: literature review and survey of current research practice. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36:320–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ng CS, Doyle TC, Courtney HM, et al. Extracolonic findings in patients undergoing abdomino-pelvic CT for suspected colorectal carcinoma in the frail and disabled patient. Clin Radiol. 2004;59:421–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Hellstrom M, Svensson MH, Lasson A. Extracolonic and incidental findings on CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:631–8.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kim YS, Kim N, Kim SY, et al. Extracolonic findings in an asymptomatic screening population undergoing intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography colonography. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:e49–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Xiong T, McEvoy K, Morton DG, et al. Resources and costs associated with incidental extracolonic findings from CT colonography: a study in a symptomatic population. Br J Radiol. 2006;79:948–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Hassan C, Pickhardt P, Laghi A, et al. Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: model simulation with cost effectiveness analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:696–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Macari M, Nevsky G, Bonavita J, et al. CT colonography in senior versus nonsenior patients: extracolonic findings, recommendations for additional imaging, and polyp prevalence. Radiology. 2011;259:767–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Brenner H. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33:88–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sonnenberg A, Delcò F, Bauerfeind P. Is virtual colonoscopy a cost-effective option to screen for colorectal cancer? Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:2268–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Ladabaum U, Song K, Fendrick AM. Colorectal neoplasia screening with virtual colonoscopy: when, at what cost, and with what national impact? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:554–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Vijan S, Hwang I, Inadomi J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of CT colonography in screening for colorectal neoplasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:380–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer. 2007;109:2213–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Lin OS, Kozarek RA, Schembre DB, et al. Risk stratification for colon neoplasia: screening strategies using colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1011–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Heitman SJ, Manns BJ, Hilsden RJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. CMAJ. 2005;173:877–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 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;39:242–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Mavranezouli I, East JE, Taylor SA. CT colonography and cost-effectiveness. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2485–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. van Ballegooijen M, Rutter CM, Knudsen AB, et al. Clarifying differences in natural history between models of screening: the case of colorectal cancer. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:540–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Vanness DJ, Knudsen AB, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, et al. Comparative economic evaluation of data from the ACRIN National CT colonography trial with three cancer intervention and surveillance modelling network microsimulations. Radiology. 2011;261:487–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, et al. Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:55–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Harris R. Speaking for the evidence: colonoscopy vs. computed tomographic colonography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1212–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Via Le Regina Elena 324, 00161, Rome, Italy

    Andrea Laghi M.D.

  2. Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Franco Iafrate M.D., Maria Ciolina M.D. & Paolo Baldassari M.D.

Authors
  1. Andrea Laghi M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franco Iafrate M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Ciolina M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paolo Baldassari M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Laghi M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Center, Department of Gastroenterology, Walter Reed National Military, 8901 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, 20889, Maryland, USA

    Brooks D. Cash

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Laghi, A., Iafrate, F., Ciolina, M., Baldassari, P. (2013). CTC Controversies (Radiation Exposure, Extracolonic Findings, Cost-Effectiveness). In: Cash, B. (eds) Colorectal Cancer Screening and Computerized Tomographic Colonography. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5943-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5943-9_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5942-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5943-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation