Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 71–79 | Cite as

Decreased-Purgation CT Colonography: State of the Art

  • Shmuel Y. Mahgerefteh
  • Arye Blachar
  • Shifra Fraifeld
  • Jacob Sosna
Article

Abstract

In the setting of CT colonography (CTC), decreasing bowel preparation measures may help to optimize colorectal cancer screening compliance without compromising accuracy. Decreased-purgation or wholly noncathartic CTC, known as nonconventional CTC, may be accomplished in conjunction with fecal tagging. Image post-processing technologies such as electronic cleansing and computer-aided detection may boost accuracy and decrease the need for bowel preparation even further. We review pre-study preparation and image post-processing techniques that have been described in nonconventional-preparation CTC studies over the past 10 years. We explore in detail specific aspects of nonconventional cathartic and fecal tagging regimens, including substance, dose, and time frame of ingestion.

Keywords

CT colonography Virtual colonoscopy Fecal tagging Bowel preparation Catharsis Purgation Electronic cleansing Spectral cleansing Computer-aided detection Virtual tagging Colorectal cancer screening 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society, Cancer facts and figures 2009. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/500809webpdf.pdf. Accessed Oct 7, 2010.
  2. 2.
    Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Colorectal (colon) cancer-screening rates. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/CANCER/colorectal/statistics/screening_rates.htm.
  3. 3.
    Florie J, van Gelder RE, Schutter MP, et al.: Feasibility study of computed tomography colonography using limited bowel preparation at normal and low-dose levels study. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(12):3112–3122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, et al.: Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology. 2003;227(2):378–384.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al.: Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(5):1300–1311.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    •• Jensch S, de Vries AH, Peringa J, et al.: CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population. Radiology. 2008:247(1):122–132. This is a relatively large prospective study demonstrating diagnostic accuracy comparable to historical full-purgation CTC, and greater patient preference for limited-purgation CTC as compared to OC.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D, et al.: Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(1):158–167.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    •• Mahgerefteh S, Fraifeld S, Blachar A, Sosna J: CT colonography with decreased purgation: balancing preparation, performance, and patient acceptance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(6):1531–1539. This is an in-depth review of studies prospectively comparing nonconventional CTC to OC for diagnostic performance and patient preference.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin OS: Computed tomographic colonography: hope or hype? World J Gastroenterol. 16(8):915–920.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park SH, Yee J, Kim SH, Kim YH: Fundamental elements for successful performance of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Korean J Radiol. 2007;8(4):264–275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    •• Johnson CD, Manduca A, Fletcher JG, et al.: Noncathartic CT colonography with stool tagging: performance with and without electronic stool subtraction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008, Feb;190(2):361–366. This is a relatively large noncathartic CTC study with electronic cleansing, demonstrating high diagnostic accuracy in a prospective comparison with OC.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J, et al.: Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology. 2002;224(2):393–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, Gouw CI, 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(2):367–376.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    •• Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, van Rijn AF, et al.: CT colonography with limited bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in an FOBT positive screening population. Abdom Imaging. 2009. This article demonstrates the high diagnostic accuracy of noncathartic CTC as compared with OC in a relatively large asymptomatic population.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nagata K, Okawa T, Honma A, et al.: Full-laxative versus minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CT colonography using 64-detector row CT: prospective blinded comparison of diagnostic performance, tagging quality, and patient acceptance. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(7):780–789.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor SA, Iinuma G, Saito Y, et al.: CT colonography: computer-aided detection of morphologically flat T1 colonic carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(8):1666–1673.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zalis ME, Perumpillichira J, Del Frate C, Hahn PF: CT colonography: digital subtraction bowel cleansing with mucosal reconstruction initial observations. Radiology. 2003;226(3):911–917.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A, et al.: Small and diminutive polyps detected at screening CT colonography: a decision analysis for referral to colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(1):136–144.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al.: Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. 2003;124(2):544–560.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al.: 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. 2008;58(3):130–160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sosna J, Morrin MM, Kruskal JB, et al.: CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(6):1593–1598.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taylor SA, Laghi A, Lefere P, et al.: European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(2):575–579.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taylor SA, Slater A, Burling DN, et al.: CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(1):32–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, et al.: CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology. 2001;219(3):693–698.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dachman AH, Dawson DO, Lefere P, et al.: Comparison of routine and unprepped CT colonography augmented by low fiber diet and stool tagging: a pilot study. Abdom Imaging. 2007;32(1):96–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johnson KT, Carston MJ, Wentz RJ, et al.: Development of a cathartic-free colorectal cancer screening test using virtual colonoscopy: a feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(1):W29–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Näppi J, Yoshida H: Virtual tagging for laxative-free CT colonography: pilot evaluation. Med Phys. 2009;36(5):1830–1838.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yoon SH, Kim SH, Kim SG, et al.: Comparison study of different bowel preparation regimens and different fecal-tagging agents on tagging efficacy, patients’ compliance, and diagnostic performance of computed tomographic colonography: preliminary study. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33(5):657–665.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Summers R: The elephant in the room: bowel preparation for CT colonography. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(7):777–779.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP: Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(3):578–585.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Adams WJ, Meagher AP, Lubowski DZ, King DW: Bisacodyl reduces the volume of polyethylene glycol solution required for bowel preparation. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;37(3):229–233. discussion 233–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Neri E, Turini F, Cerri F, et al.: CT colonography: same-day tagging regimen with iodixanol and reduced cathartic preparation. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34(5):642–647.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Regev A, Fraser G, Delpre G, et al.: Comparison of two bowel preparations for colonoscopy: sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate versus sulphate-free polyethylene glycol lavage solution. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93(9):1478–1482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rostom A, Jolicoeur E, Dube C, et al.: A randomized prospective trial comparing different regimens of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64(4):544–552.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gutierrez-Santiago M, Garcia-Unzueta M, Amado JA, et al.: Electrolyte disorders following colonic cleansing for imaging studies. Med Clin (Barc). 2006;126(5):161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wexner SD, Beck DE, Baron TH, et al.: A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(6):792–809.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al.: Optimization of multidetector row CT colonography (MDCTC) without cathartic preparation: comparison of different dosages of diatrizoate meglumine and datrizoate sodium as fecal tagging agent. Presented at The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). Chicago IL, 2004.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Diederichs G, Franiel T, Asbach P, et al.: Oral administration of intravenous contrast media: a tasty alternative to conventional oral contrast media in computed tomography. Rofo. 2007;179(10):1061–1067.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Quagliano PV, Austin RF Jr: Oral contrast agents for CT: a taste test survey. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997;21(5):720–722.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cumberland DC: Optimum viscosity of barium suspension for use in the double contrast barium meal. Gastrointest Radiol. 1977;2(2):169–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Slater A, Planner A, Bungay HK, et al.: Three-day regimen improves faecal tagging for minimal preparation CT examination of the colon. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(979):545–548.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ng CS, Doyle TC, Pinto EM, et al.: Evaluation of CT in identifying colorectal carcinoma in the frail and disabled patient. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(12):2988–2997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Giuliani A, Caporale A, Corona M, et al.: Large size, villous content and distal location are associated with severe dysplasia in colorectal adenomas. Anticancer Res. 2006;26(5):3717–3722.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nagata K, Singh AK, Sangwaiya MJ, et al.: Comparative evaluation of the fecal-tagging quality in CT colonography: barium vs. iodinated oral contrast agent. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(11):1393–1399.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ, et al.: Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology. 2000;216(3):704–711.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Slater A, Taylor SA, Burling D, et al.: Colonic polyps: effect of attenuation of tagged fluid and viewing window on conspicuity and measurement—in vitro experiment with porcine colonic specimen. Radiology. 2006;240(1):101–109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al.: Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(23):2191–2200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    O’Connor SD, Summers RM, Choi JR, Pickhardt PJ: Oral contrast adherence to polyps on CT colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006;30(1):51–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Morson B: President’s address. The polyp-cancer sequence in the large bowel. Proc R Soc Med. 1974;67(6 Pt 1):451–457.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Park SH, Ha HK, Kim AY, et al.: Flat polyps of the colon: detection with 16-MDCT colonography--preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(6):1611–1617.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pickhardt PJ: CT colonography without catharsis: the ultimate study or useful additional option? Gastroenterology. 2005;128(2):521–522. author reply 522–523.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cai W, Yoshida H, Zalis ME, et al.: Informatics in radiology: Electronic cleansing for noncathartic CT colonography: a structure-analysis scheme. Radiographics. 2010;30(3):585–602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Eliahou R, Azraq Y, Carmi R, et al.: Dual-energy based spectral electronic cleansing in non-cathartic computed tomography colonography: an emerging novel technique. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2010;31(4):309–314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Baker ME, Bogoni L, Obuchowski NA, et al.: Computer-aided detection of colorectal polyps: can it improve sensitivity of less-experienced readers? Preliminary findings. Radiology. 2007, 245(1):140–149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Summers RM, Yao J, Pickhardt PJ, et al.: Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population. Gastroenterology. 2005;129(6):1832–1844.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    •• Yoshida H, Näppi J: CAD in CT colonography without and with oral contrast agents: progress and challenges. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2007;31(4–5):267–284. This is an in-depth review of computer-aided detection techniques in conventional and nonconventional CTC examinations.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shmuel Y. Mahgerefteh
    • 1
  • Arye Blachar
    • 2
  • Shifra Fraifeld
    • 1
  • Jacob Sosna
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHadassah-Hebrew University Medical CenterJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyTel Aviv, Sourasky Medical CenterTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations