Computed tomographic colonography with a reduced dose of laxative using a novel barium sulfate contrast agent in Japan

  • Katsuhiko Mitsuzaki
  • Gen Iinuma
  • Tsuyoshi Morimoto
  • Mototaka Miyake
  • Hideto Tomimatsu
Original Article



To test the tagging efficacy, patient acceptability, and accuracy of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with a reduced dose of laxative using a novel barium sulfate (BaSO4) contrast agent.

Materials and methods

CTC followed by optical colonoscopy (OC) was performed on 73 patients with positive results in fecal occult blood tests. They were administrated a BaSO4 suspension and a magnesium citrate solution for bowel preparation. Patients completed a questionnaire about the acceptability of bowel preparation. Tagging efficacy was estimated using a novel categorization system, which classified all segments into 8 categories. The accuracy of detecting protruded lesions ≥ 6 mm was calculated from the comparison of CTC and OC results, using the latter as a reference standard.


Tagging efficacy was good in 77.3% of colonic segments where residue was observed. The acceptability of bowel preparation for CTC was significantly higher than that for OC. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 0.778, 0.945, 0.824, and 0.929, respectively. All lesions ≥ 7 mm were successfully detected by CTC.


CTC with a reduced dose of laxative using a novel BaSO4 contrast agent has a favorable tagging efficacy, patient acceptability, and accuracy.


Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) Barium sulfate Accuracy Patient acceptance Tagging efficacy 



The scientific guarantor of this publication is K. Mitsuzaki, MD, PhD. This study was funded by Fushimi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. for the approval of a pharmaceutical product, and conducted in compliance with GCP (ICH-G6). Akira Yoshino of Fushimi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. conducted the statistical analysis.


This study was funded by Fushimi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. for the approval of a pharmaceutical product, and conducted in compliance with GCP (ICH-G6).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors of this manuscript declare no relationship with any companies.

Research ethics and patient consent

Saiseikai Kumamoto Hospital Institutional Review Board approved this study (CTC-2310/P301). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients in this study.


  1. 1.
    Vining DJ, Gelfand DW, Bechtold RE, Scharling ES, Grishaw EK, Shifrin RY. Technical feasibility of colon imaging with helical CT and virtual reality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:S104.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, Heiken JP, Dachman A, Kuo MD, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1207–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Butler MD, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, Palcsch YY, Mauldin PD, Hoffman B, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA. 2004;291:1713–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, Davis W, Bosworth HB, Sanders L, et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet. 2005;365:305–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liedenbaum MH, van Rijn AF, de Vries AH, Dekker MH, Thomeer M, van Marrewijk CJ, et al. Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 2009;58:1242–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G, Monica PD, Bonelli L, Angelelli 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ 3rd. A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:3186–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:578–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C, Kohlberg G, Hahn PF. Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology. 2006;239:149–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13:227–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taylor SA, Slater A, Burling DN, Tam E, Greenhalgh R, Gartner L, et al. CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fletcher JG, Silva AC, Fidler JL, Cernigliaro JG, Manduca A, Limburg PJ, et al. Noncathartic CT colonography: image quality assessment and performance and in a screening cohort. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:787–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weitzman ER, Zapka J, Estabrook B, Goins KV. Risk and reluctance: understanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med. 2001;32:502–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeeck B. CT colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1836–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, Gouw CIBF, van Rijn AF, Bipat S, Dekker E, 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;20:367–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, Bossuyt PM, van Ballegooijen M, van de Vijver MJ, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zalis ME, Blake MA, Cai W, Hahn PF, Halpem EF, Kazam IG, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of laxative-free computed tomographic colonography for detection of adenomatous polyps in asymptomatic adults—a prospective evaluation. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:692–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iafrate F, Iannitti M, Ciolina M, Baldassari P, Pichi A, Laghi A. Bowel cleansing before CT colonography: comparison between two minimal-preparation regimens. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:203–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, Mangiapane F, Lamazza A, Schillaci A, et al. Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1300–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J, de Vries AH, Heutinck A, Dekker E, et al. CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:146–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skucas J. Anaphylactoid reactions with gastrointestinal contrast media. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168:962–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis PL. Anaphylactoid reactions to the nonvascular administration of water-soluble iodinated contrast media. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:1140–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Haan MC, van Gelder RE, Graser A, Bipat S, Stoker J. Diagnostic value of CT-colonography as compared to colonoscopy in an asymptomatic screening population: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1747–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D, Schäfer C, Horst D, Becker CR, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim YS, Kim N, Kim SH, Park MJ, Lim SH, Yim JY, et al. The efficacy of intravenous contrast-enhanced 16-raw multidetector CT colonography for detecting patients with colorectal polyps in an asymptomatic population in Korea. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;42:791–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Macari M, Bini EJ, Jacobs SL, Nalk S, Lui YW, Milano A, et al. Colorectal polyps and cancers in asymptomatic average-risk patients: evaluation with CT colonography. Radiology. 2004;230:629–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R. Colorectal Cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection—systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2011;259:393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Axelrad AM, Fleischer DE, Geller AJ, Nguyen CC, Lewis JH, Al-Kawas FH, et al. High-resolution chromoendoscopy for the diagnosis of diminutive colon polyps: implications for colon cancer screening. Gastroenterology. 1996;110:1253–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Apel D, Jakobs R, Schilling D, Weickert U, Teichmann J, Bohrer MH, et al. Accuracy of high-resolution chromoendoscopy in prediction of histologic findings in diminutive lesions of the rectosigmoid. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:824–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Radiological Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Preventive MedicineSaiseikai Kumamoto HospitalKumamotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyNational Cancer Center HospitalTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of RadiologySt. Marianna University School of MedicineKawasakiJapan
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyGifu University School of MedicineGifuJapan

Personalised recommendations