Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine the clinical significance of polyps missed on CT colonography using histologic analysis and the natural history of colorectal polyps and to propose guidelines for follow-up colon surveillance based on CT colonographic findings. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. One hundred eighty-six men (age range, 40-87 years; mean, 62.3 years) underwent CT colonography immediately before conventional colonoscopy. All polyps detected on CT colonography were measured and imaged, and their segmental location was documented. All polyps detected on colonoscopy were measured, photographed, biopsied, and histologically analyzed. Results of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy were compared with the final pathology reports. Conventional colonoscopy was used as the gold standard unless CT colonography showed a lesion measuring 10 mm or more that was not detected on conventional colonoscopy and had characteristics of a polyp. In these cases, follow-up conventional colonoscopy was offered. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one polyps were detected on conventional colonoscopy. CT colonography prospectively detected 53 polyps. Histologic analysis of the polyps not detected on CT colonography showed that of those 5 mm or smaller, 58.1% were not adenomas, and of those measuring 6-9 mm, 42.8% were not adenomas. Both missed polyps at CT colonography of 10 mm or more were adenomas. Of the 22 polyps measuring 10 mm or more, three were not detected on conventional colonoscopy. Of these three, CT colonography showed a lesion having characteristics of a polyp, follow-up endoscopy confirmed the presence of the lesion, and histologic analysis showed a villous adenoma, a tubulovillous adenoma, and a tubular adenoma. CONCLUSION: If CT colonography shows no abnormality, follow-up screening in 5 years is recommended. If CT colonography detects a lesion smaller than 5 mm, follow-up imaging in 3-5 years is recommended. If CT colonography detects a lesion measuring 6 mm or more, endoscopy and polypectomy should be offered unless contraindicated

PURPOSE: To compare thin-section multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) colonography with conventional colonoscopy in the evaluation of colorectal polyps and cancer in asymptomatic average-risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight asymptomatic men (age > 50 years) scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were enrolled in this study. CT colonography was followed by conventional colonoscopy, performed on the same day. Supine and prone CT colonography were performed after colonic insufflation with room air. A gastroenterologist measured all polyps, which were categorized as 1-5, 6-9, or over 10 mm. Biopsy and histologic evaluation were performed of all polyps. CT colonography and colonoscopy results were compared for location, size, and morphology of detected lesions. Point estimates and 95% CIs were provided for specificity and sensitivity of CT by using results at conventional colonoscopy as the reference standard. RESULTS: At colonoscopy, 98 polyps were identified in 39 patients; 21 (21.4%) of 98 were detected at CT colonography. Sensitivity was 11.5% (nine of 78) for polyps 1-5 mm, 52.9% (nine of 17) for polyps 6-9 mm, and 100% (three of three) for polyps over 10 mm. Results at colonoscopy were normal in 29 (42.6%) of 68 patients; at CT colonography, results were correctly identified as normal in 26 of these 29 patients. In one of these patients, a lesion larger than 10 mm was detected at CT colonography. The per-patient specificity of CT was 89.7% (26 of 29; 95% CI: 72.7%, 97.8%). The mean time for CT image interpretation was 9 minutes. CONCLUSION: In patients at average risk for colorectal cancer, CT colonography is a sensitive and specific screening test for detecting polyps 10 mm or larger; the sensitivity for detecting smaller polyps is decreased. Examination findings can be interpreted in a clinically feasible amount of time

PURPOSE: To evaluate if differences exist in the interpretation of thin- and thick-section reconstructions at computed tomographic (CT) colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients underwent multi-detector row CT colonography prior to colonoscopy. CT images were reconstructed with two methods: 1.25-mm sections reconstructed every 1 mm (thin) and 5-mm sections reconstructed every 2 mm (thick). Two independent readers interpreted thin sections, then waited a minimum of 15 days before interpreting thick sections. With colonoscopy as the reference standard, comparisons were made between interpretation of thin and thick sections, including sensitivity, specificity, and number of false-positive observations. Interpretation times were recorded, and comparisons were made by using repeated measures analysis of variance. For all tests, P <.05 indicated a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: At colonoscopy, 10 patients had 12 polyps (</=5 mm, n = 7; 6-9 mm, n = 2; >/=10 mm, n = 3). Sensitivity for polyp detection was statistically indistinguishable for thin and thick sections. Reader 1 had three false-positive findings with thin sections and six with thick sections. Reader 2 had six false-positive findings with thin sections and 11 with thick sections. For both readers, the number of false-positive findings was significantly lower for thin sections than for thick sections (P =.035). Specificity was 93.3% with thin sections and 80.0% with thick sections for reader 1 and 80.0% with thin sections and 73.3% with thick sections for reader 2. Mean interpretation time for reader 1 was significantly longer with thin sections (P <.001). Mean interpretation time for reader 2 was 13.0 minutes for both thin and thick sections. CONCLUSION: Specificity improved for both readers with thin sections, with no difference in sensitivity.

Numerous filling defects may be detected in the colon during interpretation of data sets obtained with computed tomographic (CT) colonography. A series of 230 patients were evaluated with thin-section multidetector row CT colonography immediately before conventional colonoscopy. In all cases, the interpreting radiologist and gastroenterologist reviewed the imaging findings as well as the results of histologic analysis of biopsy specimens to determine the causes of filling defects. In many cases, the cause of a filling defect can be confidently determined at CT colonography by using combinations of two- and three-dimensional images. However, lesions will occasionally be indeterminate because of overlapping features and will require further evaluation with endoscopy. With knowledge of the morphologic and attenuation characteristics of the various filling defects in the colon, one should be able to differentiate those filling defects detected at CT colonography that require no further evaluation from those that require endoscopic interrogation