European Radiology

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 348–358 | Cite as

Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography

  • Delia Campanella
  • Lia Morra
  • Silvia Delsanto
  • Vincenzo Tartaglia
  • Roberto Asnaghi
  • Alberto Bert
  • Emanuele Neri
  • Daniele Regge
Gastrointestinal

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the computed tomographic colonography (CTC) image quality and patient acceptance of three iodine-based faecal tagging bowel preparations in 60 patients undergoing the following regimens: a 2-day regimen of meal-time administration of iodine and phospho-soda (GFPH); a 2-day regimen of meal-time mild laxative, followed by iodine administered 2 h before CTC (SD); and a 2-day regimen of meal-time administration of iodine (GF).

Methods

Two independent radiologists assessed tagging quality; quantitative measures included the tagged stool density, and computer-aided detection (CAD) false-positive rate.

Results

The GFPH and SD regimens provided better subjective quality than GF (p < 0.001). The latter regimen resulted in a higher proportion of insufficiently tagged segments: the measured average stool density was less than 200 HU in 10.7% in all segments vs 3.6% for SD and <0.5% for GFPH, respectively. Insufficient tagging occurred mostly in the ascending colon and the caecum. The CAD false-positive rate increased following the trend: GFPH < SD < GF (p = 0.00012). GFPH was worse tolerated than SD (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Considering preparation quality alone, GFPH was the best regimen, but SD provided the best balance between bowel preparation quality and patient acceptability.

Keywords

CT colonography Faecal tagging Bowel preparation Quality assessment Computer aided detection 

References

  1. 1.
    Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ et al (2007) CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 357:1403–1412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) 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 58:130–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY et al (2008) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359:1207–1217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beebe TJ, Johnson CD, Stoner SM, Anderson KJ, Limburg PJ (2007) Assessing attitudes toward laxative preparation in colorectal cancer screening and effects on future testing: potential receptivity to computed tomographic colonography. Mayo Clin Proc 82:666–671CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pickhardt PJ (2007) Colonic preparation for computer tomographic colonography: understanding the relative advantages and disadvantages of a noncathartic approach. Mayo Clin Proc 82:659–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J et al (2002) Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results-polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology 224:393–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gryspeerdt S, Lefere P, Herman M et al (2005) CT colonography with fecal tagging after incomplete colonoscopy. Eur Radiol 15:1192–1202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG et al (2001) CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology 219:693–698PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127:1300–1311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J et al (2005) CT colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1836–1842PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Hinshaw JL et al (2007) Prospective blinded trial comparing 45-mL and 90-mL doses of oral sodium phosphate for bowel preparation before computed tomographic colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:53–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D et al (2002) Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol 12:1410–1415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zalis ME, Perumpillichira J, Magee C (2006) Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 239:149–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neri E, Turini F, Cerri F, Vagli P, Bartolozzi C (2008) CT colonography: same-day tagging regimen with iodixanol and reduced cathartic preparation. Abdom Imaging. doi:10.1007/s00261-008-9453-z
  16. 16.
    Taylor SA, Slater A, Burling DN et al (2008) CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol 18:32–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K (1990) Adverse reactions to ionic and non ionic contrast media: a report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology 175:621–628PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Skucas J (1997) Anaphylactoid reactions with gastrointestinal contrast media. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:962–964PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taylor SA, Laghi A, Lefere P, Halligan S, Stoker J (2007) European society of gastrointestinal and abdominal radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:575–579CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zalis ME, Perumpillichira J, Del Frate C, Hahn PF (2003) CT Colonography: digital subtraction bowel cleansing with mucosal reconstruction—initial observations. Radiology 226:911–917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D et al (2008) Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amount of mild laxatives for CT colonography. Am J Roentgenol 191:158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Slater A, Taylor SA, Burling D et al (2006) Colonic polyps: effect of attenuation of tagged fluid and viewing windows on conspicuity and measurement—in vitro experiment with porcine colonic specimen. Radiology 240:101–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yoshida H, Nappi J (2007) CAD in CT colonography without and with oral contrast agents: progress and challenges. Comput Med Imaging Graph 31:267–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Delsanto S, Morra L, Agliozzo S et al (2008) Computer aided detection of polyps in virtual colonoscopy with sameday faecal tagging. Proc SPIE Medical Imaging 6915-28Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chan Y, Walmsley RP (1997) Learning and understanding the Kruskal-Wallis One-way analysis-of-variance-by-ranks test for differences among three or more independent groups. Phys Ther 77:1755–1761PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sprent P, Smeeton NC (2001) Applied nonparametric statistical methods, 3rd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kundel HL, Polansky M (2003) Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 228:303–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Campanella D, Morra L, Delsanto S, Gallo TM, Tartaglia V, Regge D (2008) Quantitative quality assessment of different faecal tagging (FT) CT colonography (CTC) preparations. Eur Radiol 18(Suppl 1):B-363Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Delia Campanella
    • 1
  • Lia Morra
    • 2
  • Silvia Delsanto
    • 2
  • Vincenzo Tartaglia
    • 4
  • Roberto Asnaghi
    • 5
  • Alberto Bert
    • 2
  • Emanuele Neri
    • 3
  • Daniele Regge
    • 1
  1. 1.Radiology UnitInstitute for Cancer Research and TreatmentCandioloItaly
  2. 2.im3D S.p.A.TurinItaly
  3. 3.Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  4. 4.Presidio Ospedaliero Riunito Ciriè, ASL 4 TorinoCirièItaly
  5. 5.Radiologia, Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri, IRCCSIstituto Scientifico di VerunoVerunoItaly

Personalised recommendations