Skip to main content

The Prerequisite: Faecal Tagging

  • Chapter
Virtual Colonoscopy

Part of the book series: Medical Radiology ((Med Radiol Diagn Imaging))

  • 1035 Accesses

As described in the previous chapter, preparing the colon is a sine qua non to adequately perform state-of-the-art CT colonography. The option of an intensive preparation to obtain a colon as clean and dry as possi ble has been approved in 2005 in a consensus statement by several CT colonography experts and is currently still the method of choice to prepare the colon for CT colonography (Barish et al. 2005). Indeed, in a well-distended, clean, and dry colon, con-spicuity of tumoral lesions should be at its best. However, the real world is not that simple. Indeed, two large trials of >600 patients have shown that an intensive cathartic preparation might be insufficient in obtaining good results of polyp detection (Cotton et al. 2004; Rockey et al. 2005). Both the Cotton and Rockey trials obtained very disappointing results with a sensitivity of <60% for adenomas ≥ 6 mm. Of the many flaws these two trials have been inflicted with, the lack of fecal tagging was considered a major shortcoming (Ferrucci and Working Group on CT C olongraphy 2005a and author reply Ferrucci 2005b). Furthermore, to date, the U.S. Department of Defence trial obtained the best results of polyp detection in a large asymptomatic population of 1,233 patients at average risk for colorectal cancer using a preparation combining a low-residue diet and oral laxatives with fecal tagging (Pickhardt et al. 2003a, b). Since the publication of this landmark study, fecal tagging was gradually accepted as an indispensable part of the colonic preparation for CT colonography. This propensity for fecal tagging was confirmed in the ESGAR-CTC consensus statement published in 2007 (Taylor et al. 2007) and in the recent ACRIN 6664 trial fecal tagging was part of the preparation (Johnson et al. 2008).

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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

  • American College of Radiology Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media (2005) Manual on contrast media, version 5.0 (iodinated gastrointestinal contrast media: indications and guidelines). American College of Radiology, Reston, pp 37–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Barish MA, Soto JA, Ferrucci JT (2005) Consensus on current clinical practice of virtual colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:786–792

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bromer MQ, Weinberg DS (2005) Screening for colorectal can-cer–now and the near future. Semin Oncol 32:3–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carr DH et al (1985) Comparison of barium and diatrizoate bowel labelling agents in computed tomography. Brit J Radiol 58:393–394

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers SE et al (1984) A comparison of dilute barium and dilute water-soluble contrast in opacification of the bowel for abdominal computed tomography. Clinic Radiol 35:463–464

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen DC, Dachman AH (2006) Cecal mobility: a potential pitfall of CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 186:1086–1089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 291:1713–1719

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Nunes DP et al (1999) A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. NEJM 341:1496–1502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fenlon HM (2002) CT colonography: pitfalls and interpretation. Abdom Imaging 27:284–291

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrucci J; Working Group on CT Colongraphy (2005a) CT colonography for detection of colon polyps and cancer. Lancet 365:1464–1465; author reply 1465–1466

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrucci JT (2005) Colonoscopy: virtual and optical–another look, another view. Radiology 235:13–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jensch S, de Vries A, Peringa J et al (2008) CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population. Radiology 247:122–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnunen J et al (1989) Omnipaque and gastrografin in gastrointestinal follow-through examinations. Röntgenblätter 42:228–231

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laerum F et al (1991) Iodinated contrast and the gastrointestinal tract. Invest Radiol 26:177–181

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macari M, Megibow AJ (2001) Pitfalls of using three-dimensional CT colonography with two-dimensional imaging correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:137–143

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macleod AJ, Duncan KA, Pearson RH et al (1998) A comparison of Fleet Phospho-soda with Picolax in the preparation of the colon for double contrast barium enema. Clin Radiol 53:612–614

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morrin MM, Farrell RJ, Kruskal JB et al (1999) Virtual colonos-copy: a kinder, gentler colorectal cancer screening test? Lancet 354:1048–1049

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy J, Coster G (1997) Issues in patient compliance. Drugs 54:797–800

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickhardt PJ, Pineau BC, Paskett ED et al (2003b) Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonos-copy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 125:304–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rex DK (2000) Virtual colonoscopy: time for some tough questions for radiologists and gastroenterologists. Endoscopy 32:260–263

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D et al (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365:305–311

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour PC et al (1997) Anaphylactic shock during a routine upper gastrointestinal series. AJR 168:957–958

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor S, Laghi A, Lefere P et al (2007) European society of gastrointestinal and abdominal radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:575–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomeer M, Carbone I, Bosmans H et al (2003) Stool tagging applied in thin-slice multidetector computed tomography colonography. JCAT 27:132–139

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dam J, Cotton P, Johnson CD et al (2004) AGA future trends report: CT colonography. Gastroenterology 127:970–984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zalis ME, Perumpillichira J, Del Frate C et al (2003) CT colonog-raphy: digital subtraction bowel cleansing with mucosal reconstruction—initial observations. Radiology 226:911–917

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lefere, P., Gryspeerdt, S. (2010). The Prerequisite: Faecal Tagging. In: Lefere, P., Gryspeerdt, S. (eds) Virtual Colonoscopy. Medical Radiology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79886-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79886-6_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-79879-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-79886-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics