Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coloscopie virtuelle — par tomodensitométrie (CTDM) et résonance magnétique (CRM) — dans la détection des polypes coliques et des lésions néoplasiques

CT and MRI based virtual colonoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps and neoplasms

  • Published:
Acta Endoscopica

Résumé

Tant chez l’homme que chez la femme, le cancer colorectal (CCR) constitue la deuxième cause de décès dans les pays occidentaux. Par conséquent, le dépistage du cancer colorectal et de ses précurseurs est un important problème de santé publique. L’utilisation de la coloscopie par tomodensitométrie computée (CTDM) et par résonance magnétique (CRM), mieux connue sous l’appellation coloscopie virtuelle, rencontre un succès populaire croissant. Le présent article a pour but de passer en revue les données de la littérature, d’établir l’état actuel de la coloscopie virtuelle, et de prédire son impact potentiel sur la pratique actuelle et future en gastro-entérologie.

En résumé, la coloscopie virtuelle, spécialement celle pratiquée par coloscopie en TDM est hautement spécifique, mais sa sensibilité est très variable. Cette hétérogénéité s’accroît en fonction de la cohérence du procédé et de la variabilité des moyens techniques. Ces problèmes doivent être résolus avant que la coloscopie virtuelle puisse être proposée comme une méthode généralisée de dépistage du cancer colorectal.

Summary

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death for both women and men in western countries. Thus screening for colorectal cancer and its precursors is an important public health issue. Increasing popular screening tests for colorectal cancer are computed tomographic (CT) colonography and magnetic resonance (MR) colonography, also known as virtual colonoscopy. In this article we reviewed the literature to assess the current state of the art of virtual colonoscopy and to predict the potential impact on the current and future practice in gastroenterology. In summary virtual colonoscopy, especially computed tomographic colonography is highly specific, but the range of reported sensitivities is wide. This heterogeneity raises concerns about consistency of performance and about technical variability. These issues must be resolved before virtual colonoscopy can be advocated for generalized screening for colorectal cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Références

  1. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, Samuels A, Tiwari RC, Ghafoor A, Feuer EJ, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005; 55: 10–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, Bond J, Burt R, Ferrucci J, Ganiats T, Levin T, Woolf S, Johnson D, Kirk L, Litin S, Sirnmang C. Gastrointestinal Consortium Panel. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale- update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003; 124: 544–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN. Scree- ning for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 132–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ioannou GN, Chapko MK, Dominitz JA. Predictors of colo- rectal cancer screening participation in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2082–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. DiPalma AM, Barnes SE, DiPalma JA. Patient participation in colon cancer screening programs. South Med J 1998; 91: 342–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vining DJ, Gelfand DW, Bechtold RE, Grishaw EKSRY. Technical feasibility of colon imaging with helical CT and vir- tual reality, (abstr) AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162: S104.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hara AK, Johnson CD, Reed JE, Ahlquist DA, Nelson H, Maccarty RL, Harmsen WS, Ilstrup DM. Detection of colorec- tal polyps with CT colonography: initial assessment of sensiti- vity and specificity. Radiology 1997; 205: 59–65.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rex DK, Vining D, Kopecky KK. An initial experience with screening for colon polyps using spiral CT with and without CT colography (virtual colonoscopy). Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 309–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC III, Barish MA, Clarke PD, Ferrucci JT. A comparison of virtual and conventional colono- scopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1496–1503.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pescatore P, Glucker T, Delarive J, Meuli R, Pantoflickova D, Duvoisin B, Schnyder P, Blum AL, Dorta G. Diagnostic accu- racy and interobserver agreement of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Gut 2000; 47: 126–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kay CL, Kulling D, Hawes RH, Young JW, Cotton PB. Virtual endoscopy — comparison with colonoscopy in the detection of space-occupying lesions of the colon. Endoscopy 2000; 32: 226–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McFarland EG, Pilgram TK, Brink JA, McDermott RA, Santillan CV, Brady PW, Heiken JP, Balfe DM, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP, Littenberg B. CT colonography: multiobserver diagnostic performance. Radiology 2002; 225: 380–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ, Maccarty RL, Ahlquist DA, Reed JE, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA. Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology 2000; 216: 704–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, Steinauer-Gebauer AM, Wall SD, McQuaid KR. Colorectal neoplasia: performance charac- teristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 2001; 219: 685–92.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pineau BC, Paskett ED, Chen GJ, Espeland MA, Phillips K, Han JP, Mikulaninec C, Vining DJ. Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003; 125: 304–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Macari M, Bini EJ, Xue X, Milano A, Katz SS, Resnick D, Chandarana H, Krinsky G, Klingenbeck K, Marshall CH, Megibow AJ. Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology 2002; 224: 383–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone 1, Catalano C, Di Giulio E, Schillaci A, Passariello R. Detection of colorectal lesions with virtual computed tomographic colonography. Am J Surg 2002; 183: 124–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA, Maccarty RL, Welch TJ, Ilstrup DM, Ahlquist DA. Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003; 125: 311–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Butler JA, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, Wong RK, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA, Schindler WR. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2191–200.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, Palesch YY, Mauldin PD, Hoffman B, Vining DJ, Small WC, Affronti J, Rex D, Kopecky KK, Ackerman S, Burdick JS, Brewington C, Turner MA, Zfass A, Wright AR, Iyer RB, Lynch P, Sivak MV, Butler H. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colono- scopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004; 291: 1713–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, Davis W, Bosworth HB, Sanders L, Yee J, Henderson J, Hatten P, Burdick S, Sanyal A, Rubin DT, Sterling M, Akerkar G, Bhutani MS, Binmoeller K, Garvie J, Bini EJ, McQuaid K, Foster WL, Thompson WM, Dachman A, Halvorsen R. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 2005; 365: 305–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rembacken BJ, Fujii T, Cairns A, Dixon MF, Yoshida S, Chalmers DM, Axon AT. Flat and depressed colonic neoplasms: a prospective study of 1000 colonoscopies in the UK. Lancet 2000; 355: 1211–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Saitoh Y, Waxman I, West AB, Popnikolov NK, Gatalica Z, Watari J, Obara T, Kohgo Y, Pasricha PJ. Prevalence and dis- tinctive biological features of flat colorectal adenomas in a North American population. Gastroenterology 2001; 120: 1657–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tsuda S, Veress B, Toth E, Fork FT. Flat and depressed colo- rectal tumours in southern Swedish population: a prospective chromoendoscopic and histopathological study. Gut 2002; 51: 550–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Aldridge AJ, Simson JN. Histological assessment of colorectal adenomas by size: Are polyps less than 10 mm in size clinically important? Eur J Surg 2001; 167: 777–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Nittka M, et al. Partially parallel imaging with localized sensitivities (PILS). Magn Reson Med 2000; 44: 602–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, Goehde SC, Debatin JF, Ruehm SG. MR colonography: how does air compare to water for colonic distention? J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 19: 216–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Ruehm SG, Holtmann G, Debatin JF. MR colonography with barium-based fecal tagging: ini- tial clinical experience. Radiology 2002; 223: 248–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ajaj WM, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, Gerken G, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF, Goehde SC. Magnetic resonance colonography for the detection of inflammatory diseases of the large bowel: quantifying the inflammatory activity. Gut 2005; 54: 257–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Wildermuth S, et al. Colonic masses: detection with MR colonography. Radiology 2000; 216: 383–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM, et al. Magnetic reso- nance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonie endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 2000; 119: 300–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U, et al. Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colo- noscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 2003; 52: 1738–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D, et al. Prospective Compa- rison of Dark Lumen MR Colonography and Conventional Colonoscopy for the Detection of Colorectal Polyps. Radio- logy in press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine C Gastroenterology, Hospital Ludwigshafen GmbH, Germany

    D. Hartmann

  2. Academic Teaching Hospital of the Johannes-Gutenberg, University of Mainz, Ludwigshafen, Germany

    J. F. Riemann

Authors
  1. D. Hartmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. F. Riemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Hartmann, D., Riemann, J.F. Coloscopie virtuelle — par tomodensitométrie (CTDM) et résonance magnétique (CRM) — dans la détection des polypes coliques et des lésions néoplasiques. Acta Endosc 35, 569–579 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03003917

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03003917

Mots-clés

Key-words

Search

Navigation