European Radiology

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 575–579

European society of gastrointestinal and abdominal radiology (ESGAR): Consensus statement on CT colonography

  • Stuart A. Taylor
  • Andrea Laghi
  • Philippe Lefere
  • Steve Halligan
  • Jaap Stoker
News from ESGAR

Abstract

Rapid clinical dissemination of CT colonography (CTC) is occurring in parallel with continued research into technique optimisation and diagnostic performance. A need exists therefore for current guidance as to basic prerequisites for effective clinical implementation. A questionnaire detailing CTC technique, analysis, training and clinical implementation was developed by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) CTC committee and circulated to all faculty members of previous ESGAR “hands-on” CTC training courses. Responses were collated and a consensus statement produced. Of 27 invited to participate, 24 responded. Reasonable consensus was reached on bowel preparation, colonic distension, patient positioning, use of IV contrast and optimal scan parameters. Both primary 2D and primary 3D analysis were advocated equally, with some evidence that more experienced readers prefer primary 2D. Training was universally recommended, although there was no consensus regarding minimum requirements. CTC was thought superior to barium enema, although recommended for screening only in the presence of validated local experience. There was consensus that polyps 4 mm or less could be ignored assuming agreement from local gastroenterological colleagues. There is increasing consensus amongst European experts as to the current best practice in CTC.

Keywords

Colonography Computed tomographic/standards: Consensus Computed tomographic/methods Questionnaires 

Supplementary material

330_2006_407_MOESM1_ESM.doc (96 kb)
(DOC 98 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Vining DJ, Gelfand DW, Bechtold RE, Scharling ES, Grishaw EK, Shifrin RY (1994) Technical feasibility of colon imaging with helical CT and virtual reality (abstr). AJR Am J Roentgenol 162(Suppl):104Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burling D, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Usiskin S, Bartram CI (2004) CT colonography practice in the UK: a national survey. Clin Radiol 59:39–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barish MA, Soto JA, Ferrucci JT (2005) Consensus on current clinical practice of virtual colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:786–792PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeeck BG (2002) Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology 224:393–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, Mangiapane F, Lamazza A, Schillaci A, Sinibaldi G, Murakami T, Sammartino P, Hori M, Piacentini F, Nofroni I, Stipa V, Passariello R (2004) Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127:1300–1311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, Reed JE, Ahlquist DA, Harmsen WS, Tait K, Wilson LA, Corcoran KE (2001) CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology 219:693–698PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pineau BC, Paskett ED, Chen GJ, Espeland MA, Phillips K, Han JP, Mikulaninec C, Vining DJ (2003) Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 125:304–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Baekelandt M, Van HB (2004) Laxative-free CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:945–948PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Butler JA, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, Wong RK, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA, Schindler WR (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Offord KP, Harris AM, Wilson LA, Ahlquist DA (2003) Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: Prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 227:378–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D, Dymarkowski S, Gevers A, Rutgeerts P, Hiele M, Van Cutsem E, Marchal G (2002) Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol 12:1410–1415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McFarland EG, Zalis ME (2004) CT colonography: progress toward colorectal evaluation without catharsis. Gastroenterology 127:1623–1626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor SA, Halligan S, Goh V, Morley S, Bassett P, Atkin W, Bartram CI (2003) Optimizing colonic distention for multi-detector row CT colonography: Effect of hyoscine butylbromide and rectal balloon catheter. Radiology 229:99–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruzzi JF, Moss AC, Brennan DD, MacMathuna P, Fenlon HM (2003) Efficacy of IV Buscopan as a muscle relaxant in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 13:2264–2270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogalla P, Lembcke A, Ruckert JC, Hein E, Bollow M, Rogalla NE, Hamm B (2005) Spasmolysis at CT colonography: butyl scopolamine versus glucagon. Radiology 236:184–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen SC, Lu DS, Hecht JR, Kadell BM (1999) CT colonography: value of scanning in both the supine and prone positions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:595–599PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yee J, Kumar NN, Hung RK, Akerkar GA, Kumar PR, Wall SD (2003) Comparison of supine and prone scanning separately and in combination at CT colonography. Radiology 226:653–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gryspeerdt SS, Herman MJ, Baekelandt MA, Van Holsbeeck BG, Lefere PA (2004) Supine/left decubitus scanning: a valuable alternative to supine/prone scanning in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 14:768–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holemans JA, Matson MB, Hughes JA, Seed P, Rankin SC (1998) A comparison of air, CO2 and an air/CO2 mixture as insufflation agents for double contrast barium enema. Eur Radiol 8:274–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scullion DA, Wetton CW, Davies C, Whitaker L, Shorvon PJ (1995) The use of air or CO2 as insufflation agents for double contrast barium enema (DCBE): is there a qualitative difference? Clin Radiol 50:558–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taylor PN, Beckly DE (1991) Use of air in double contrast barium enema-is it still acceptable? Clin Radiol 44:183–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burling D, Taylor SA, Halligan S, Gartner L, Paliwalla M, Peiris C, Singh L, Bassett P, Bartram C (2006) Automated insufflation of carbon dioxide for MDCT colonography: distension and patient experience compared with manual insufflation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:96–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burling D., Halligan, S, Slater A, Noakes MJ, Taylor SA (2006). Potentially serious adverse events at CT colonography in symptomatic patients: national survey of the United Kingdom. Radiology 239:464–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, Dachman AH, Fenlon HM, Ferrucci JT, Glick SN, Laghi A, Macari M, McFarland EG, Morrin MM, Pickhardt PJ, Soto J, Yee J (2005) CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 236:3–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pickhardt PJ (2003) Three-dimensional endoluminal CT Colonography (virtual colonoscopy): Comparison of three commercially available systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:1599–1606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, McFarland EG, Taylor AJ (2005) Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays. Radiology 236:872–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Burling D, Halligan S, Taylor SA Brennand DJ, Altman DG, Bassett P, Atkin W, Bartram CI (2006) Polyp measurement during CT colonography: agreement with colonoscopy and effect of viewing conditions on interobserver and intraobserver agreement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1597–1604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, Roddie ME, Honeyfield L, McQuillan J, Amin H, and Dehmeshki J (2006) CT colonography: Performance of computer assisted reader software for polyp detection in comparison to expert observers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:696–702Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Summers RM, Yao J, Pickhardt PJ, Franaszek M, Bitter I, Brickman D, Krishna V, Choi R (2005) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population. Gastroenterology 129:1832–1844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yoshida H, Masutani Y, MacEneaney P, Rubin DT, Dachman AH (2002) Computerized detection of colonic polyps at CT colonography on the basis of volumetric features: Pilot study. Radiology 222:327–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yoshida H, Nappi J, MacEneaney P, Rubin DT, Dachman AH (2002) Computer-aided diagnosis scheme for detection of polyps at CT colonography. Radiographics 22:963–979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Soto JA, Barish MA, Yee J (2005) Reader training in CT colonography: how much is enough? Radiology 237:26–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Spinzi G, Belloni G, Martegani A, Sangiovanni A, Del Favero C, Minoli G (2001) Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Gastroenterol 96:394–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, Morley S, Bassett P, Atkin W, Bartram CI (2004) CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol 14:1025–1033PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, Bassett P, Bartram CI (2005) Intra-individual comparison of patient acceptability of multidetector-row CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema. Clin Radiol 60:207–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, Davis W, Bosworth HB, Sanders L, Yee J, Henderson J, Hatten P, Burdick S, Sanyal A, Rubin DT, Sterling M, Akerkar G, Bhutani MS, Binmoeller K, Garvie J, Bini EJ, McQuaid K, Foster WL, Thompson WM, Dachman A, Halvorsen R (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365:305–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, Welch TJ, Wilson LA, Harmsen WS, Ilstrup DM, Ahlquist DA (2004) Comparison of the relative sensitivity of CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2:314–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Muto T, Bussey HJ, Morson BC (1975) The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 36:2251–2270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rex DK (2005) PRO: Patients with polyps smaller than 1 cm on computed tomographic colonography should be offered colonoscopy and polypectomy. Am J Gastroenterol 100:1903–1905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart A. Taylor
    • 1
  • Andrea Laghi
    • 2
  • Philippe Lefere
    • 3
  • Steve Halligan
    • 1
  • Jaap Stoker
    • 4
  1. 1.Departments of ImagingUniversity College HospitalLondonUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Departments of ImagingICOT-Latina, Institution University of Rome “La Sapienza”LatinaItaly
  3. 3.Departments of ImagingStedelijk ZiekenhuisRoeselareBelgium
  4. 4.Departments of ImagingAcademic Medical Center, University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations