Advertisement

Performance and Interpretation of CTC

Chapter

Abstract

It has been almost 30 years since Coin proposed that computed tomography (CT) scanning had the potential to be used as a screening tool for the detection of colonic polyps [1]. Yet it was not until 1994 that Vining and coworkers were able to employ the new technology of spiral/helical CT and modern computer graphics, catalyzing extensive research and clinical efforts that molded the field that we now call CT colonography (CTC) or “virtual colonoscopy.” [2] Owing to these efforts, reasonable consensus now exists on the optimal means by which to prepare the patient, acquire the CT data, and interpret the resulting images, though some healthy debates do persist. The goal of this chapter is to describe these technical factors in CTC and to give the reader a perspective on current techniques and alternatives. We review the best evidence for current practices and recommendations. With this information, we hope the reader will have a thorough understanding of what is required to set up a high-quality clinical operation for performance of CTC.

Keywords

Bowel Preparation Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction Optical Colonoscopy Polyp Detection Interpretation Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Coin CG, Wollett FC, Coin JT, Rowland M, DeRamos RK, Dandrea R. Computerized radiology of the colon: a potential screening technique. Comput Radiol. 1983;7(4):215–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vining DJ, Shifrin RY, Grishaw EK, Liu K, Gelfand DW. Virtual colonoscopy. Radiology. 1994;193(P):446.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ, et al. Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology. 2000;216(3):704–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Virtual colonoscopy workshop. San Francisco, CA; 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hara AK, Kuo MD, Blevins M, et al. National CT colonography trial (ACRIN 6664): comparison of three full-laxative bowel preparations in more than 2500 average-risk patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(5):1076–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McRorie J, Kesler J, Bishop L, et al. Effects of wheat bran and olestra on objective measures of stool and subjective reports of GI symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95(5):1244–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen HL, Haack VS, Janecky CW, Vollendorf NW, Marlett JA. Mechanisms by which wheat bran and oat bran increase stool weight in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998;68(3):711–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liedenbaum MH, Denters MJ, de Vries AH, et al. Low-fiber diet in limited bowel preparation for CT colonography: influence on image quality and patient acceptance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(1):W31–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Delegge M, Kaplan R. Efficacy of bowel preparation with the use of a prepackaged, low fibre diet with a low sodium, magnesium citrate cathartic vs. a clear liquid diet with a standard sodium phosphate cathartic. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21(12):1491–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson CD, Chen M-H, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(12):1207–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    FDA. Oral sodium phosphate (OSP) products for bowel cleansing (marketed as Visicol and OsmoPrep, and oral sodium phosphate products available without a prescription); 2008.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yee J. CT colonography: techniques and applications. Radiol Clin North Am. 2009;47(1):133–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Hinshaw JL, Taylor AJ, Mukherjee R, Pfau PR. 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. 2007;31(1):53–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aihara H, Saito S, Arakawa H, et al. Comparison of two sodium phosphate tablet-based regimens and a polyethylene glycol regimen for colon cleansing prior to colonoscopy: a randomized prospective pilot study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24(9):1023–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berkelhammer C, Ekambaram A, Silva RG. Low-volume oral colonoscopy bowel preparation: sodium phosphate and magnesium citrate. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56(1):89–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hsu C-W, Imperiale TF. Meta-analysis and cost comparison of polyethylene glycol lavage versus sodium phosphate for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;48(3):276–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macari M, Lavelle M, Pedrosa I, et al. Effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid at CT colonography. Radiology. 2001;218(1):274–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tan JJ, Tjandra JJ. Which is the optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy - a meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8(4):247–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vanner SJ, MacDonald PH, Paterson WG, Prentice RS, Da Costa LR, Beck IT. A randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate with standard polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution (Golytely) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1990;85(4):422–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim SH, Choi BI, Han JK, et al. CT colonography in a Korean population with a high residue diet: comparison between wet and dry preparations. Clin Radiol. 2006;61(6):483–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25(4):373–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: adverse event reports for oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29(1):15–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ehrenpreis ED, Nogueras JJ, Botoman VA, Bonner GF, Zaitman D, Secrest KM. Serum electrolyte abnormalities secondary to Fleet’s Phospho-Soda colonoscopy prep. A review of three cases. Surg Endosc. 1996;10(10):1022–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vukasin P, Weston LA, Beart RW. Oral Fleet phospho-soda laxative-induced hyperphosphatemia and hypocalcemic tetany in an adult: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40(4):497–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khurana A, McLean L, Atkinson S, Foulks CJ. The effect of oral sodium phosphate drug products on renal function in adults undergoing bowel endoscopy. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(6):593–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Markowitz GS, Stokes MB, Radhakrishnan J, D’Agati VD. Acute phosphate nephropathy following oral sodium phosphate bowel purgative: an underrecognized cause of chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16(11):3389–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mathus-Vliegen EM, Kemble UM. A prospective randomized blinded comparison of sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution for safe bowel cleansing. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;23(4):543–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wiberg JJ, Turner GG, Nuttall FQ. Effect of phosphate or magnesium cathartics on serum calcium: observations in normocalcemic patients. Arch Intern Med. 1978;138(7):1114–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Borden ZS, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Lubner MG, Agriantonis DJ, Hinshaw JL. Bowel preparation for CT colonography: blinded comparison of magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate for catharsis. Radiology. 2010;254(1):138–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pickhardt PJ. Screening CT, colonography: how I do it. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(2):290–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ell C, Fischbach W, Keller R, et al. A randomized, blinded, prospective trial to compare the safety and efficacy of three bowel-cleansing solutions for colonoscopy (HSG-01*). Endoscopy. 2003;35(4):300–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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):378–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nagata K, Okawa T, Honma A, Endo S, Kudo S-E, Yoshida H. 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):780–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Flor N, Rigamonti P, Di Leo G, et al. Technical quality of CT colonography in relation with diverticular disease. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(3):e250–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Taylor S, Laghi A, Lefere P, Halligan S, Stoker J. European society of gastrointestinal and abdominal radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(2):575–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Park SH, Yee J, Kim SH, Kim YH. Fundamental elements for successful performance of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Korean J Radiol. 2007;8(4):264–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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(6):1836–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeeck BG. Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology. 2002;224(2):393–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Slater A, Taylor SA, Burling D, Gartner L, Scarth J, Halligan S. 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):101–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bielen D, Thomeer M, Vanbeckevoort D, et al. Dry preparation for virtual CT colonography with fecal tagging using water-soluble contrast medium: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(3):453–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al. Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(5):1300–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    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):158–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeeck B. Laxative-free CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(4):945–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nagata K, Endo S, Ichikawa T, et al. Polyethylene glycol solution (PEG) plus contrast medium vs PEG alone preparation for CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in preoperative colorectal cancer staging. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2007;22(1):69–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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):2191–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gryspeerdt S, Lefere P, Herman M, et al. CT colonography with fecal tagging after incomplete colonoscopy. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(6):1192–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Behrens C, Eddy R, Stevenson G, Audet L, Mathieson J. Bowel preparation regimen for computed tomography colonography. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2010;61(5):280–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zalis ME, Hahn PF. Digital subtraction bowel cleansing in CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(3):646–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Horton KM, Fishman EK, Gayler B. The use of iohexol as oral contrast for computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008;32(2):207–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    O’Connor SD, Summers RM. Revisiting oral barium sulfate contrast agents. Acad Radiol. 2007;14(1):72–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    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;190(2):361–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    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(1):149–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Davis GR, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG, Fordtran JS. Inhibition of water and electrolyte absorption by polyethylene glycol (PEG). Gastroenterology. 1980;79(1):35–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Seymour CW, Pryor JP, Gupta R, Schwab CW. Anaphylactoid reaction to oral contrast for computed tomography. J Trauma. 2004;57(5):1105–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Stordahl A, Laerum F, Gjølberg T, Enge I. Water-soluble contrast media in radiography of small bowel obstruction. Acta Radiol. 1988;29(1):53–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Boyce C, Vetter J, Pickhardt P. MDCT artifact related to the intra-scan gravitational flow of opacified luminal fluid (the “Dense Waterfall” sign). Abdom Imaging. 2012;37(2):292–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pickhardt PJ. Translucency rendering in 3D endoluminal CT colonography: a useful tool for increasing polyp specificity and decreasing interpretation time. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(2):429–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Guerrisi A, Marin D, Laghi A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of translucency rendering to differentiate polyps from pseudopolyps at 3D endoluminal CT colonography: a feasibility study. Radiol Med. 2010;115(5):758–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(3):578–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Beebe TJ, Johnson CD, Stoner SM, Anderson KJ, Limburg PJ. Assessing attitudes toward laxative preparation in colorectal cancer screening and effects on future testing: potential receptivity to computed tomographic colonography. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(6):666–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    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):1531–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Liedenbaum MH, Denters MJ, Zijta FM, et al. Reducing the oral contrast dose in CT colonography: evaluation of faecal tagging quality and patient acceptance. Clin Radiol. 2011;66(1):30–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, et al. CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology. 2001;219(3):693–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    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):3112–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    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):122–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zalis ME, Perumpillichira J, Del Frate C, Hahn PF. CT colonography: digital subtraction bowel cleansing with mucosal reconstruction initial observations. Radiology. 2003;226(3):911–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Pochaczevsky R. Digital subtraction bowel cleansing in CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178(1):241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Serlie IW, de Vries AH, van Vliet LJ, et al. Lesion conspicuity and efficiency of CT colonography with electronic cleansing based on a three-material transition model. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(5):1493–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Park SH, Lee SS, Kim JK, et al. Volume rendering with color coding of tagged stool during endoluminal fly-through CT colonography: effect on reading efficiency. Radiology. 2008;248(3):1018–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Davis W, Nisbet P, Hare C, Cooke P, Taylor SA. Non-laxative CT colonography with barium-based faecal tagging: is additional phosphate enema beneficial and well tolerated? Br J Radiol. 2011;84(998):120–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yee J, Kumar NN, Hung RK, Akerkar GA, Kumar PR, Wall SD. Comparison of supine and prone scanning separately and in combination at CT colonography. Radiology. 2003;226(3):653–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Burling D, Taylor SA, Halligan S, et al. Automated insufflation of carbon dioxide for MDCT colonography: distension and patient experience compared with manual insufflation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(1):96–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Vining DJ. Virtual colonoscopy. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1999;20(1):56–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Shinners TJ, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Jones DA, Olsen CH. Patient-controlled room air insufflation versus automated carbon dioxide delivery for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(6):1491–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Pickhardt PJ. Incidence of colonic perforation at CT colonography: review of existing data and implications for screening of asymptomatic adults. Radiology. 2006;239(2):313–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Atalla MA, Rozen WM, Niewiadomski OD, Croxford MA, Cheung W, Ho YH. Risk factors for colonic perforation after screening computed tomographic colonography: a multicentre analysis and review of the literature. J Med Screen. 2010;17(2):99–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sosna J, Blachar A, Amitai M, et al. Colonic perforation at CT colonography: assessment of risk in a multicenter large cohort. Radiology. 2006;239(2):457–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Chen SC, Lu DS, Hecht JR, Kadell BM. CT colonography: value of scanning in both the supine and prone positions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(3):595–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Buchach CM, Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ. Performing an additional decubitus series at CT colonography. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(5):538–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Dachman AH. Advice for optimizing colonic distention and minimizing risk of perforation during CT colonography. Radiology. 2006;239(2):317–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Kim DH, Reichelderfer M, Gopal DV, Pfau PR. Screening for colorectal neoplasia with CT colonography: initial experience from the 1st year of coverage by third-party payers. Radiology. 2006;241(2):417–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Baekelandt M, Dewyspelaere J, van Holsbeeck B. Diverticular disease in CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2003;13 Suppl 4:L62–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Skucas J. The use of antispasmodic drugs during barium enemas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162(6):1323–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lappas JC, Maglinte DD, Chernish SM, Hage JP, Kelvin FM. Discomfort during double-contrast barium enema examination: a placebo-controlled double-blind evaluation of the effect of glucagon and diazepam. Radiology. 1995;197(1):95–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Morrin MM, Farrell RJ, Keogan MT, Kruskal JB, Yam CS, Raptopoulos V. CT colonography: colonic distention improved by dual positioning but not intravenous glucagon. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(3):525–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Yee J, Hung RK, Akerkar GA, Wall SD. The usefulness of glucagon hydrochloride for colonic distention in CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(1):169–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Chernish SM, Maglinte DD. Glucagon: common untoward reactions – review and recommendations. Radiology. 1990;177(1):145–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Bruzzi JF, Moss AC, Brennan DD, MacMathuna P, Fenlon HM. Efficacy of IV buscopan as a muscle relaxant in CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(10):2264–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL. Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(8):635–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy 3rd PC, Barish MA, Clarke PD, Ferrucci JT. A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(20):1496–503 [see comments] [published erratum appears in N Engl J Med. 2000;342(7):524].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Hara AK, Johnson CD, Reed JE, et al. Reducing data size and radiation dose for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168(5):1181–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Lui YW, Macari M, Israel G, Bini EJ, Wang H, Babb J. CT colonography data interpretation: effect of different section thicknesses – preliminary observations. Radiology. 2003;229(3):791–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Macari M, Bini EJ, Xue X, et al. Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology. 2002;224(2):383–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    McCollough CH. Optimization of multidetector array CT acquisition parameters for CT colonography. Abdom Imaging. 2002;27(3):253–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Florie J, et al. CT colonography: feasibility of substantial dose reduction – comparison of medium to very low doses in identical patients. Radiology. 2004;232(2):611–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for the performance of computed tomography (CT) colonography in adults. 2009. http://www.acr.org/~/media/A81531ACA92F45058A83B5281E8FE826.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2012.
  99. 99.
    Hall EJ, Brenner DJ. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol. 2008;81(965):362–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Luz O, Buchgeister M, Klabunde M, et al. Evaluation of dose exposure in 64-slice CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(10):2616–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Serlie IW, et al. CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction. Radiology. 2002;224(1):25–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Brenner DJ, Georgsson MA. Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology. 2005;129(1):328–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Liedenbaum MH, Venema HW, Stoker J. Radiation dose in CT colonography – trends in time and differences between daily practice and screening protocols. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(10):2222–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, Mangiapane F, Piacentini F, Passariello R. Feasibility of ultra-low-dose multislice CT colonography for the detection of colorectal lesions: preliminary experience. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(6):1297–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Fisichella V, Båth M, Allansdotter Johnsson Å, et al. Evaluation of image quality and lesion perception by human readers on 3D CT colonography: comparison of standard and low radiation dose. Eur Radiol. 2009;20(3):630–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    de Gonzalez AB, Kim KP, Knudsen AB, et al. Radiation-related cancer risks from CT colonography screening: a risk-benefit analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(4):816–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Flicek KT, Hara AK, Silva AC, Wu Q, Peter MB, Johnson CD. Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(1):126–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Lubner MG, Pickhardt PJ, Tang J, Chen GH. Reduced image noise at low-dose multidetector CT of the abdomen with prior image constrained compressed sensing algorithm. Radiology. 2011;260(1):248–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Graser A, Wintersperger BJ, Suess C, Reiser MF, Becker CR. Dose reduction and image quality in MDCT colonography using tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(3):695–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Amis Jr ES, Butler PF, Applegate KE, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4(5):272–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    McFarland EG, Fletcher JG, Pickhardt P, et al. ACR Colon Cancer Committee white paper: status of CT colonography 2009. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6(11):756–72.e754.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Dachman AH, Kelly KB, Zintsmaster MP, et al. Formative evaluation of standardized training for CT colonographic image interpretation by novice readers. Radiology. 2008;249(1):167–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Fletcher JG, Chen M-H, Herman BA, et al. Can radiologist training and testing ensure high performance in CT colonography? Lessons from the national CT colonography trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(1):117–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Gluecker T, Meuwly JY, Pescatore P, et al. Effect of investigator experience in CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(6):1405–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, et al. CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(6):1025–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Jensch S, van Gelder RE, Florie J, et al. Performance of radiographers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(3):W249–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Burling D. CT colonography standards. Clin Radiol. 2010;65(6):474–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Rockey DC, Barish M, Brill JV, et al. Standards for gastroenterologists for performing and interpreting diagnostic computed tomographic colonography. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(3):1005–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Boone D, Halligan S, Frost R, et al. CT colonography: who attends training? A survey of participants at educational workshops. Clin Radiol. 2011;66(6):510–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    van Dam J, Cotton P, Johnson CD, et al. AGA future trends report: CT colonography. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(3):970–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology. 2005;236(1):3–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Liedenbaum MH, Bipat S, Bossuyt PM, et al. Evaluation of a standardized CT colonography training program for novice readers. Radiology. 2011;258(2):477–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Saunders BP, Phillips RK, Williams CB. Intraoperative measurement of colonic anatomy and attachments with relevance to colonoscopy. Br J Surg. 1995;82(11):1491–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Kim J, Park S, Lee S, Kim A, Ha H. Ascending colon rotation following patient positional change during CT colonography: a potential pitfall in interpretation. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(2):353–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Gluecker TM, Fletcher JG, Welch TJ, et al. Characterization of lesions missed on interpretation of CT colonography using a 2D search method. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(4):881–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Robbins JB. Flat (nonpolypoid) colorectal lesions identified at CT colonography in a U.S. screening population. Acad Radiol. 2010;17(6):784–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Soetikno R, Kaltenbach T. High-quality CT colonography can detect nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm (NP-CRN) – science or rhetoric? Acad Radiol. 2010;17(10):1317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Summers RM, Liu J, Yao J, Brown L, Choi JR, Pickhardt PJ. Automated measurement of colorectal polyp height at CT colonography: hyperplastic polyps are flatter than adenomatous polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(5):1305–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Dachman AH, Kuniyoshi JK, Boyle CM, et al. CT colonography with three-dimensional problem solving for detection of colonic polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171(4):989–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Beaulieu CF, Jeffrey Jr RB, Karadi C, Paik DS, Napel S. Display modes for CT colonography. Part II. Blinded comparison of axial CT and virtual endoscopic and panoramic endoscopic volume-rendered studies. Radiology. 1999;212(1):203–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Barish MA, Soto JA, Ferrucci JT. Consensus on current clinical practice of virtual colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(3):786–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Lenhart DK, Babb J, Bonavita J, et al. Comparison of a unidirectional panoramic 3D endoluminal interpretation technique to traditional 2D and bidirectional 3D interpretation techniques at CT colonography: preliminary observations. Clin Radiol. 2010;65(2):118–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, Taylor AJ, et al. Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(6):1451–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    An S, Lee KH, Kim YH, et al. Screening CT colonography in an asymptomatic average-risk Asian population: a 2-year experience in a single institution. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(3):W100–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Kim SH, Lee JM, Eun HW, et al. Two- versus three-dimensional colon evaluation with recently developed virtual dissection software for CT colonography. Radiology. 2007;244(3):852–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA. 2004;291(14):1713–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA, et al. Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology. 2003;125(2):311–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet. 2005;365(9456):305–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Hock D, Ouhadi R, Materne R, et al. Virtual dissection CT colonography: evaluation of learning curves and reading times with and without computer-aided detection. Radiology. 2008;248(3):860–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, MacCarty RL, et al. Effect of slice thickness and primary 2D versus 3D virtual dissection on colorectal lesion detection at CT colonography in 452 asymptomatic adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(3):672–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Macari M, Milano A, Lavelle M, Berman P, Megibow AJ. Comparison of time-efficient CT colonography with two- and three- dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174(6):1543–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Taylor SA, Halligan S, Slater A, et al. Polyp detection with CT colonography: primary 3D endoluminal analysis versus primary 2D transverse analysis with computer-assisted reader software. Radiology. 2006;239(3):759–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Choi JI, Kim SH, Park HS, et al. Comparison of accuracy and time-efficiency of CT colonography between conventional and panoramic 3D interpretation methods: an anthropomorphic phantom study. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80(2):e68–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Pickhardt PJ, Schumacher C, Kim DH. Polyp detection at 3-dimensional endoluminal computed tomography colonography: sensitivity of one-way fly-through at 120 degrees field-of-view angle. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33(4):631–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Mang T, Kolligs FT, Schaefer C, Reiser MF, Graser A. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and interpretation times for a standard and an advanced 3D visualisation technique in CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):653–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Paik DS, Beaulieu CF, Jeffrey Jr RB, Karadi CA, Napel S. Visualization modes for CT colonography using cylindrical and planar map projections. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24(2):179–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Johnson KT, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, MacCarty RL, Summers RL. CT colonography using 360-degree virtual dissection: a feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(1):90–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Christensen KN, Fidler JL, Fletcher JG, MacCarty R, Johnson CD. Pictorial review of colonic polyp and mass distortion and recognition with the CT virtual dissection technique. Radiographics. 2010;30(5):e42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Silva AC, Wellnitz CV, Hara AK. Three-dimensional virtual dissection at CT colonography: unraveling the colon to search for lesions. Radiographics. 2006;26(6):1669–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Macari M, Megibow AJ. Pitfalls of using three-dimensional CT colonography with two-dimensional imaging correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(1):137–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Rottgen R, Fischbach F, Plotkin M, et al. CT colonography using different reconstruction modi. Clin Imaging. 2005;29(3):195–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Hoppe H, Quattropani C, Spreng A, Mattich J, Netzer P, Dinkel HP. Virtual colon dissection with CT colonography compared with axial interpretation and conventional colonoscopy: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(5):1151–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Juchems MS, Fleiter TR, Pauls S, Schmidt SA, Brambs HJ, Aschoff AJ. CT colonography: comparison of a colon dissection display versus 3D endoluminal view for the detection of polyps. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(1):68–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Fisichella VA, Jaderling F, Horvath S, Stotzer PO, Kilander A, Hellstrom M. Primary three-dimensional analysis with perspective-filet view versus primary two-dimensional analysis: evaluation of lesion detection by inexperienced readers at computed tomographic colonography in symptomatic patients. Acta Radiol. 2009;50(3):244–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    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):140–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Dachman AH, Obuchowski NA, Hoffmeister JW, et al. Effect of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a multireader, multicase trial. Radiology. 2010;256(3):827–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C, et al. Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(10):2598–607.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Petrick N, Haider M, Summers RM, et al. CT colonography with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study. Radiology. 2008;246(1):148–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Taylor SA, Charman SC, Lefere P, et al. CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. Radiology. 2008;246(2):463–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Näppi J, Nagata K. Sources of false positives in computer-assisted CT colonography. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(2):153–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Halligan S, Mallett S, Altman DG, et al. Incremental benefit of computer-aided detection when used as a second and concurrent reader of CT colonographic data: multiobserver study. Radiology. 2011;258(2):469–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, et al. Computer-assisted reader software versus expert reviewers for polyp detection on CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(3):696–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Taylor SA, Robinson C, Boone D, Honeyfield L, Halligan S. Polyp characteristics correctly annotated by computer-aided detection software but ignored by reporting radiologists during CT colonography. Radiology. 2009;253(3):715–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Dachman AH, Zalis ME. Quality and consistency in CT colonography and research reporting. Radiology. 2004;230(2):319–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    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):130–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Bethea E, Nwawka OK, Dachman AH. Comparison of polyp size and volume at CT colonography: implications for follow-up CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(6):1561–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Morales TG, Sampliner RE, Garewal HS, Fennerty MB, Aickin M. The difference in colon polyp size before and after removal. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;43(1):25–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Park SH, Choi EK, Lee SS, et al. Polyp measurement reliability, accuracy, and discrepancy: optical colonoscopy versus CT colonography with pig colonic specimens. Radiology. 2007;244(1):157–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Burling D, Halligan S, Altman DG, et al. Polyp measurement and size categorisation by CT colonography: effect of observer experience in a multi-centre setting. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(8):1737–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    de Vries A, Bipat S, Dekker E, et al. Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences. Eur Radiol. 2009;20(6):1404–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Jeong JY, Kim MJ, Kim SS. Manual and automated polyp measurement: comparison of CT colonography with optical colonoscopy. Acad Radiol. 2008;15(2):231–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Punwani S, Halligan S, Irving P, et al. Measurement of colonic polyps by radiologists and endoscopists: who is most accurate? Eur Radiol. 2008;18(5):874–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, McFarland EG, Taylor AJ. Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays. Radiology. 2005;236(3):872–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Summers RM. Polyp size measurement at CT colonography: what do we know and what do we need to know? Radiology. 2010;255(3):707–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA, et al. CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology. 2005;237(3):893–904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Yeshwant SC, Summers RM, Yao J, Brickman DS, Choi JR, Pickhardt PJ. Polyps: linear and volumetric measurement at CT colonography. Radiology. 2006;241(3):802–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Summers RM, Swift JA, Dwyer AJ, Choi JR, Pickhardt PJ. Normalized distance along the colon centerline: a method for correlating polyp location on CT colonography and optical colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(5):1296–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Duncan JE, McNally MP, Sweeney WB, et al. CT colonography predictably overestimates colonic length and distance to polyps compared with optical colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(5):1291–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Church JM. Complete colonoscopy: how often? And if not, why not? Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;89(4):556–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Fenlon HM, McAneny DB, Nunes DP, Clarke PD, Ferrucci JT. Occlusive colon carcinoma: virtual colonoscopy in the preoperative evaluation of the proximal colon. Radiology. 1999;210(2):423–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Neri E, Giusti P, Battolla L, et al. Colorectal cancer: role of CT colonography in preoperative evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy. Radiology. 2002;223(3):615–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Chang KJ, Rekhi Jr SS, Anderson SW, Soto JA. Fluid tagging for CT colonography: effectiveness of a 2-hour iodinated oral preparation after incomplete optical colonoscopy. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2011;35(1):91–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Prout TM, Taylor AJ, Pickhardt PJ. Inverted appendiceal stumps simulating large pedunculated polyps on screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(2):535–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyStanford University Medical CenterStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations