European Radiology

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1195–1204 | Cite as

CT colonography without cathartic preparation: positive predictive value and patient experience in clinical practice

  • Carmen Zueco Zueco
  • Carolina Sobrido Sampedro
  • Juan D. Corroto
  • Paula Rodriguez Fernández
  • Manuela Fontanillo Fontanillo



To determine the positive predictive value (PPV) for polyps ≥6 mm detected at CT colonography (CTC) performed without cathartic preparation, with low-dose iodine faecal tagging regimen and to evaluate patient experience.


1920 average-risk patients underwent CTC without cathartic preparation. Faecal tagging was performed by diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium at a total dose of 60 ml (22.2 g of iodine).The standard interpretation method was primary 3D with 2D problem solving. We calculated per-patient and per-polyp PPV in relation to size and morphology. All colonic segments were evaluated for image quality (faecal tagging, amount of liquid and solid residual faeces and luminal distension). Patients completed a questionnaire before and after CTC to assess preparation and examination experience.


Per-polyp PPV for detected lesions of ≥6 mm, 6–9 mm, ≥10 mm and ≥30 mm were 94.3%, 93.1%, 94.7% and 98%, respectively. Per-polyp PPV, according to lesion morphology, was 94.6%, 97.3% and 85.1% for sessile, pedunculated and flat polyps, respectively. Per-patient PPV was 92.8%. Preparation without frank cathartics was reported to cause minimal discomfort by 78.9% of patients.


CTC without cathartic preparation and low-dose iodine faecal tagging may yield high PPVs for lesions ≥6 mm and is well accepted by patients.

Key Points

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) without cathartic preparation is well accepted by patients

Cathartic-free faecal tagging CTC yields high positive predictive values

CTC without cathartic preparation could improve uptake of colorectal cancer screening


CT-colonography Faecal tagging Patient acceptance Colorectal cancer Bowel preparation colorectal polyp Adenoma 



We thank C. P. Cadórniga for critical review of this manuscript and A. Salgado for his help with the data analysis.


  1. 1.
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al (1993) Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 329:1977–1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 58:130–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 349:2191–2200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ et al (2007) CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 357:1403–1412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 27:378–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D et al (2002) Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol 12:1410–1415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D et al (2008) Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:158–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG et al (2001) CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology 219:693–698PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeeck B (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
  10. 10.
    Zalis ME, Perumpillichira J, Del Frate C, Hahn PF (2003) CT colonography: digital subtraction bowel cleansing with mucosal reconstruction initial observations. Radiology 226:911–917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson CD, Manduca A, Fletcher JG et al (2008) Noncathartic CT colonography with stool tagging: performance with and without electronic stool subtraction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 19:361–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127:1300–1311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dachman AH, Dawson DO, Lefere P et al (2007) Comparison of routine and unprepped CT colonography augmented by low fiber diet and stool tagging: a pilot study. Abdom Imaging 32:96–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Florie J, van Gelder RE, Schutter MP et al (2007) Feasibility study of computed tomography colonography using limited bowel preparation at normal and low-dose levels study. Eur Radiol 17:3112–3122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buccicardi D, Grosso M, Caviglia I et al (2010) CT colonography: patient tolerance of laxative free fecal tagging regimen versus traditional cathartic cleansing. Abdom Imaging. doi: 10.1007/s00261-010-9650-4
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Neri E, Turini F, Cerri F, Vagli P, Bartolozzi C (2009) CT colonography: same-day tagging regimen with iodixanol and reduced cathartic preparation. Abdom Imaging 34:642–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J et al (2010) CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol 20:146–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Campanella D, Morra L, Delsanto S et al (2010) Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography. Eur Radiol 20:348–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pickhardt PJ, Wise SM, Kim DH (2010) Positive predictive value for polyps detected at screening CT colonography. Eur Radiol 20:1651–1656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, Taylor AJ et al (2007) Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1451–1456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR et al (2005) CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 236:3–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Macari M, Lavelle M, Pedrosa I et al (2001) Effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid al CT colonography. Radiology 218:274–277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pineau BC, Paskett ED, Chen GJ et al (2003) Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 125:304–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG (2002) The advanced adenoma as the primary target of screening. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 12:1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    An S, Lee KH, Kim YH et al (2008) Screening CT colonography in an asymptomatic average-risk Asian population: a 2-year experience in a single institution. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:W100–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Kim DH, Reichelderfer M, Gopal DV, Pfau PR (2006) Screening for colorectal neoplasia with CT colonography: initial experience from the 1st year of coverage by third-party payers. Radiology 241:417–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Hanson ME, Hinshaw JL (2010) CT colonography: performance and program outcome measures in an older screening population. Radiology 254:493–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, Ahnen DJ, Garewal H, Chejfec G (2000) Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. N Engl J Med 343:162–168, Erratum in: N Engl J Med 343:1204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lostumbo A, Suzuki K, Dachman AH (2010) Flat lesions in CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 35:578–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C, Kohlberg G, Hahn PF (2006) Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 239:149–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Keeling AN, Slattery MM, Leong S et al (2010) Limited-preparation CT colonography in frail elderly patients: a feasibility study. AJR 194:1279–1287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Iafrate F, Hassan C, Zullo A et al (2008) CT colonography with reduced bowel preparation after incomplete colonoscopy in the elderly. Eur Radiol 18:1385–1395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, Gouw CI et al (2010) CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes. Eur Radiol 20:367–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Iafrate F, Hassan C, Ciolina M et al (2011) High positive predictive value of CT colonography in a referral centre. Eur J Radiology 66:e289–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liedenbaum MH, Denters MJ, Zijta FM et al (2011) Reducing the oral contrast dose in CT colonography: evaluation of faecal tagging quality and patient acceptance. Clin Radiol 66:30–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liedenbaum MH, Denters MJ, de Vries AH et al (2010) Low-fiber diet in limited bowel preparation for CT colonography: Influence on image quality and patient acceptance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W31–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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 82:666–671PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shinners TJ, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ et al (2006) Patient-controlled room air insufflation versus automated carbon dioxide delivery for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1491–1496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmen Zueco Zueco
    • 1
  • Carolina Sobrido Sampedro
    • 1
  • Juan D. Corroto
    • 1
  • Paula Rodriguez Fernández
    • 1
  • Manuela Fontanillo Fontanillo
    • 2
  1. 1.Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo - CHUVIVigoSpain
  2. 2.Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo - CHUVIVigoSpain

Personalised recommendations