Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence Review and Status Update on Computed Tomography Colonography

  • Published:
Current Gastroenterology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is being implemented increasingly in the USA and Europe, and in many centers it has become the radiological technique of choice for imaging the whole colorectum. Although high diagnostic accuracy has been demonstrated in both screening and symptomatic populations, controversy persists regarding implementation, who should interpret the examination, and its cost effectiveness, particularly in the context of primary colorectal cancer screening. Published research in recent years has demonstrated efficacy in a wide range of patient groups, striking technical improvements, and high levels of patient acceptability. New developments continue in the fields of computer aided detection, digital cleansing, and integration into positron emission tomography. The purpose of this review is to bring the reader up-to-date with the latest developments in CT colonography, in particular, those of the last year.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. •• 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. This large, prospective, multicentre trial evaluated CTC performance in average risk asymptomatic patients. Compared to the colonoscopic reference standard, CTC had excellent sensitivity for cancer and large adenomas.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, et al. CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(14):1403–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. •• Taylor SA, Halligan S, Atkin W et al. Clinical trials and experiences: SIGGAR. Presented at the 11th International Symposium on Virtual Colonoscopy. Westin Copley Place, Boston, MA. October 25–27, 2010. Randomized controlled trial comparing CTC to barium enema and colonoscopy for detecting large polyps or cancer in symptomatic patients. Preliminary results have prompted the UK Department of Health to withdraw barium enema from its national screening program.

  6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(9):627–37.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(5):1570–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Knudsen AB, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Rutter CM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the medicare population. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(16):1238–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. • Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Meiners RJ, et al. Colorectal and extracolonic cancers detected at screening CT colonography in 10,286 asymptomatic adults. Radiology 2010;255(1):83–8. A retrospective evaluation of cancer detection rates in over 10000 CTC screening patients. Overall, one in 500 asymptomatic individuals was shown to have invasive colorectal cancer and one in 300 had extracolonic cancer.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. •• Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of advanced neoplasia in individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA: J Am Med Assoc 2009;301(23):2453–61. This multicentre study demonstrated good diagnostic performance when using CTC to investigate patients at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer such as those with a family history of advanced neoplasia or positive fecal occult blood test.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. •• Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D, et al. Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut 2009;58(2):241–8. A prospective, within-subject comparison of CTC, colonoscopy, FOBT, and flexible sigmoidoscopy. CTC achieved a remarkably high sensitivity for detecting polyps with advanced histological features during screening of average risk individuals.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Halligan S, Lilford RJ, Wardle J, et al. Design of a multicentre randomized trial to evaluate CT colonography versus colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colonic cancer in older symptomatic patients: the SIGGAR study. Trials. 2007;8:32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. • Halligan S, Waddingham J, Dadswell E, et al. SIGGAR trial investigators: detection of extracolonic lesions by CTC in symptomatic patients: their frequency and severity in a randomised controlled trial. Eur Radiol 2010;20(Suppl 1):S8. Important extracolonic findings were considerably more prevalent in this randomized controlled trial of symptomatic patients than in previous studies which have examined screening populations.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sali L, Falchini M, Della Monica P, et al. CT colonography before colonoscopy in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test. Preliminary experience. Radiol Med. 2010;115(8):1267–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Benson M, Dureja P, Gopal D, et al. A comparison of optical colonoscopy and ct colonography screening strategies in the detection and recovery of subcentimeter adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(12):2578–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. • Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, et al. Systematic review: distribution of advanced neoplasia according to polyp size at screening colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010;31(2):210–7. This methodological literature review provides estimates of advanced histological features from over 20000 colonoscopic polypectomy specimens. Referral size thresholds for CTC are suggested.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. de Vries AH, Bipat S, Dekker E, et al. Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(6):1404–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ignjatovic A, Burling D, Ilangovan R, et al. Flat colon polyps: what should radiologists know? Clinical Radiology. 2010;65(12):958–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dhruva SS, Phurrough SE, Salive ME, Redberg RF. CMS’s landmark decision on CT colonography–examining the relevant data. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(26):2699–701.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Hassan C. Re: cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the medicare population. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(21):1676.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moawad FJ, Maydonovitch CL, Cullen PA, et al. CT colonography may improve colorectal cancer screening compliance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(5):1118–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ho W, Broughton DE, Donelan K, et al. Analysis of barriers to and patients’ preferences for CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening in a nonadherent urban population. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):393–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. • Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A, Kim DH. CT Colonography to screen for colorectal cancer and aortic aneurysm in the medicare population: cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(5):1332–40. The additional financial burden of investigating incidental extracolonic pathology remains the subject of debate. This modelling exercise focuses on abdominal aortic aneurysms, suggesting their detection will improve cost-effectiveness of a potential CTC screening program.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cash BD. CT colonography: ready for prime time? Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(10):2128–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schoen RE, Hashash JG. Con: CT colonography-not yet ready for community-wide implementation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(10):2132–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Burke CA. A balancing view: the good, the bad, and the unknown. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(10):2137–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. • Fletcher JG, Chen MH, 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. This interesting study compared observer performance in a CTC test set (before and after focused training) with their performance in a prospective screening study.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. • Boone D, Halligan S, Frost R, et al. CT colonography: who attends training? A survey of participants at educational workshops. Clin Radiol 2011. In press. This survey suggests the level of training and experience among those interpreting CT colonography in daily practice falls short of consensus recommendations.

  30. • Burling D. CT colonography standards. Clin Radiol 2010;65(6):474–80. This document supersedes the 2007 European (ESGAR) consensus statement summarizing best practice guidelines for CTC implementation.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. •• 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.e4. This thorough review considers the evidence for CTC performance, training and certification, colonic and extracolonic reporting, quality metrics and cost-effectiveness.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Von Wagner C, Halligan S, Atkin WS, et al. Choosing between CT colonography and colonoscopy in the diagnostic context: a qualitative study of influences on patient preferences. Health Expectations. 2009;12(1):18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J, et al. CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(1):146–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. • 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. Systematic review of studies that prospectively compare acceptability and performance of reduced laxative CTC with optical colonoscopy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. • Atalla MA, Rozen WM, Niewiadomski OD, et al. 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. Systematic review supplemented by a multicentre analysis to estimate the perforation risk during 3458 screening CTC examinations.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cha EY, Park SH, Lee SS, et al. CT colonography after metallic stent placement for acute malignant colonic obstruction. Radiology. 2010;254(3):774–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mc Laughlin P, Eustace J, Mc Sweeney S, et al. Bowel preparation in CT colonography: electrolyte and renal function disturbances in the frail and elderly patient. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(3):604–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ridge CA, Carter MR, Browne LP, et al. CT colonography and transient bacteraemia: implications for antibiotic prophylaxis. Eur Radiol. 2010;21(2):360–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Young PE, Ray QP, Hwang I, et al. Gastroenterologists’ interpretation of CTC: a pilot study demonstrating feasibility and similar accuracy compared with radiologists’ interpretation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(12):2926–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pickhardt PJ. Editorial: CTC interpretation by gastroenterologists: feasible but largely impractical, undesirable, and misguided. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(12):2932–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Burling D, Wylie P, Gupta A, et al. CT colonography: accuracy of initial interpretation by radiographers in routine clinical practice. Clin Radiol. 2010;65(2):126–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Veerappan GR, Ally MR, Choi JH, et al. Extracolonic findings on CT colonography increases yield of colorectal cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):677–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pickhardt PJ, Hanson ME. Incidental adnexal masses detected at low-dose unenhanced CT in asymptomatic women age 50 and older: implications for clinical management and ovarian cancer screening. Radiology. 2010;257(1):144–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lawrence EM, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Robbins JB. Colorectal polyps: stand-alone performance of computer-aided detection in a large asymptomatic screening population. Radiology. 2010;256(3):791–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wi JY, Kim SH, Lee JY, et al. Electronic cleansing for CT colonography: does it help CAD software performance in a high-risk population for colorectal cancer? Eur Radiol. 2010;20(8):1905–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Taylor SA, Robinson C, Boone D, et al. Polyp characteristics correctly annotated by computer-aided detection software but ignored by reporting radiologists during CT colonography. Radiology. 2009;253(3):715–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Summers RM, Liu J, Rehani B, et al. CT colonography computer-aided polyp detection: effect on radiologist observers of polyp identification by CAD on both the supine and prone scans. Acad Radiol. 2010;17(8):948–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Roth H, McClelland J, Modat M, et al. Establishing spatial correspondence between the inner colon surfaces from prone and supine CT colonography. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2010;13(Pt 3):497–504.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. • 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. Multi-observer study using computer aided detection as “second reader”.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. • 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. A further, large multicenter, multi-observer study assessing the added benefit provided to experienced readers when computer aided detection is employed as “second reader” or “concurrent reader”.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Taylor SA, Bomanji JB, Manpanzure L, et al. Nonlaxative PET/CT colonography: feasibility, acceptability, and pilot performance in patients at higher risk of colonic neoplasia. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(6):854–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was undertaken at UCLH/UCL who received a proportion of funding from the Department of Health’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health.

Disclosure

Steve Halligan and Stuart A. Taylor have worked as research consultants for Medicisight PLC; Darren Boone reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Medical Imaging, University College Hospital, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK

    Darren Boone, Steve Halligan & Stuart A. Taylor

  2. Centre for Medical Imaging, University College Hospital, Podium Level 2, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK

    Stuart A. Taylor

Authors
  1. Darren Boone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steve Halligan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stuart A. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stuart A. Taylor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boone, D., Halligan, S. & Taylor, S.A. Evidence Review and Status Update on Computed Tomography Colonography. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 13, 486–494 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-011-0217-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-011-0217-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation