The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography

To update quality standards for CT colonography based on consensus among opinion leaders within the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). A multinational European panel of nine members of the ESGAR CT colonography Working Group (representing six EU countries) used a modified Delphi process to rate their level of agreement on a variety of statements pertaining to the acquisition, interpretation and implementation of CT colonography. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, each at 2 months interval. The panel elaborated 86 statements. In the final round the panelists achieved complete consensus in 71 of 86 statements (82 %). Categories including the highest proportion of statements with excellent Cronbach's internal reliability were colon distension, scan parameters, use of intravenous contrast agents, general guidelines on patient preparation, role of CAD and lesion measurement. Lower internal reliability was achieved for the use of a rectal tube, spasmolytics, decubitus positioning and number of CT data acquisitions, faecal tagging, 2D vs. 3D reading, and reporting. The recommendations of the consensus should be useful for both the radiologist who is starting a CTC service and for those who have already implemented the technique but whose practice may need updating

CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging

To establish the optimum barium-based reduced-laxative tagging regimen prior to CT colonography (CTC). Ninety-five subjects underwent reduced-laxative (13 g senna/18 g magnesium citrate) CTC prior to same-day colonoscopy and were randomised to one of four tagging regimens using 20 ml 40%w/v barium sulphate: regimen A: four doses, B: three doses, C: three doses plus 220 ml 2.1% barium sulphate, or D: three doses plus 15 ml diatriazoate megluamine. Patient experience was assessed immediately after CTC and 1 week later. Two radiologists graded residual stool (1: none/scattered to 4: >50% circumference) and tagging efficacy for stool (1: untagged to 5: 100% tagged) and fluid (1: untagged, 2: layered, 3: tagged), noting the HU of tagged fluid. Preparation was good (76–94% segments graded 1), although best for regimen D (P = 0.02). Across all regimens, stool tagging quality was high (mean 3.7–4.5) and not significantly different among regimens. The HU of layered tagged fluid was higher for regimens C/D than A/B (P = 0.002). Detection of cancer (n = 2), polyps ≥6 mm (n = 21), and ≤5 mm (n = 72) was 100, 81 and 32% respectively, with only four false positives ≥6 mm. Reduced preparation was tolerated better than full endoscopic preparation by 61%. Reduced-laxative CTC with three doses of 20 ml 40% barium sulphate is as effective as more complex regimens, retaining adequate diagnostic accuracy

The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography

Objective: To update quality standards for CT colonography based on consensus among opinion leaders within the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). Material and methods: A multinational European panel of nine members of the ESGAR CT colonography Working Group (representing six EU countries) used a modified Delphi process to rate their level of agreement on a variety of statements pertaining to the acquisition, interpretation and implementation of CT colonography. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, each at 2 months interval. Results: The panel elaborated 86 statements. In the final round the panelists achieved complete consensus in 71 of 86 statements (82 %). Categories including the highest proportion of statements with excellent Cronbach's internal reliability were colon distension, scan parameters, use of intravenous contrast agents, general guidelines on patient preparation, role of CAD and lesion measurement. Lower internal reliability was achieved for the use of a rectal tube, spasmolytics, decubitus positioning and number of CT data acquisitions, faecal tagging, 2D vs. 3D reading, and reporting. Conclusion: The recommendations of the consensus should be useful for both the radiologist who is starting a CTC service and for those who have already implemented the technique but whose practice may need updating. Key Points: • Computed tomographic colonography is the optimal radiological method of assessing the colon • This article reviews ESGAR quality standards for CT colonography • This article is aimed to provide CT-colonography guidelines for practising radiologists • The recommendations should help radiologists who are starting/updating their CTC services © 2012 The Author(s)

CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare a 1-day with a 2-day iodine bowel preparation for CT colonography in a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients underwent CT colonography and colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. The first 50 patients (group 1) ingested 7 50 ml iodinated contrast starting 2 days before CT colonography. The latter 50 patients (group 2) ingested 4 50 ml iodinated contrast starting 1 day before CT colonography. Per colonic segment measurements of residual stool attenuation and homogeneity were performed, and a subjective evaluation of tagging quality (grade 1-5) was done. Independently, two reviewers performed polyp and carcinoma detection. RESULTS: The tagging density was 638 and 618 HU (p = 0.458) and homogeneity 91 and 86 HU for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.145). The tagging quality was graded 5 (excellent) in 90% of all segments in group 1 and 91% in group 2 (p = 0.749). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for lesions >or=10 mm was 86% in group 1 and 97% in group 2 (p = 0.355). Patient burden from diarrhoea significantly decreased for patients in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: One-day preparation with meglumine ioxithalamate results in an improved patient acceptability compared with 2-day preparation and has a comparable, excellent image quality and good diagnostic performanc

Feasibility study of computed tomography colonography using limited bowel preparation at normal and low-dose levels study

The purpose was to evaluate low-dose CT colonography without cathartic cleansing in terms of image quality, polyp visualization and patient acceptance. Sixty-one patients scheduled for colonoscopy started a low-fiber diet, lactulose and amidotrizoic-acid for fecal tagging 2 days prior to the CT scan (standard dose, 5.8–8.2 mSv). The original raw data of 51 patients were modified and reconstructed at simulated 2.3 and 0.7 mSv levels. Two observers evaluated the standard dose scan regarding image quality and polyps. A third evaluated the presence of polyps at all three mSv levels in a blinded prospective way. All observers were blinded to the reference standard: colonoscopy. At three times patients were given questionnaires relating to their experiences and preference. Image quality was sufficient in all patients, but significantly lower in the cecum, sigmoid and rectum. The two observers correctly identified respectively 10/15 (67%) and 9/15 (60%) polyps ≥10 mm, with 5 and 8 false-positive lesions (standard dose scan). Dose reduction down to 0.7 mSv was not associated with significant changes in diagnostic value (polyps ≥10 mm). Eighty percent of patients preferred CT colonography and 13% preferred colonoscopy (P<0.001). CT colonography without cleansing is preferred to colonoscopy and shows sufficient image quality and moderate sensitivity, without impaired diagnostic value at dose-levels as low as 0.7 mSv

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline – Update 2020

1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence. 7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence. 8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6–9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Source and scop

Patient Acceptance of Noninvasive and Invasive Coronary Angiography

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive angiography using multislice computed tomography (MSCT) is superior to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detection of coronary stenoses. We compared patient acceptance of these two noninvasive diagnostic tests and invasive conventional coronary angiography (Angio). METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 111 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease underwent MSCT, MRI, and Angio. Subsequently, patient acceptance of the three tests was evaluated with questionnaires in all patients. The main acceptance variables were preparation and information prior to the test, degree of concern, comfort, degree of helplessness, pain (on visual analog scales), willingness to undergo the test again, and overall satisfaction. Preparation for each test was not rated significantly differently, whereas patients were significantly more concerned about Angio than the two noninvasive tests (p<0.001). No pain during MSCT, MRI, and Angio as assessed on visual analog scales (0 to 100) was reported by 99, 93, and 31 patients, respectively. Among the 82 patients who felt pain during at least one procedure, both CT (0.9±4.5) and MRI (5.2±16.6) were significantly less painful than Angio (24.6±23.4, both p<0.001). MSCT was considered significantly more comfortable (1.49±0.64) than MRI (1.75±0.81, p<0.001). In both the no-revascularization (55 patients) and the revascularization group (56 patients), the majority of the patients (73 and 71%) would prefer MSCT to MRI and Angio for future imaging of the coronary arteries. None of the patients indicated to be unwilling to undergo MSCT again. The major advantages patients attributed to MSCT were its fast, uncomplicated, noninvasive, and painless nature. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive coronary angiography with MSCT is considered more comfortable than MRI and both MSCT and MRI are less painful than Angio. Patient preference for MSCT might tip the scales in favor of this test provided that the diagnostic accuracy of MSCT can be shown to be high enough for clinical application

Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers?

The purpose of this study was to compare a primary uncleansed 2D and a primary electronically cleansed 3D reading strategy in CTC in limited prepped patients. Seventy-two patients received a low-fibre diet with oral iodine before CT-colonography. Six novices and two experienced observers reviewed both cleansed and uncleansed examinations in randomized order. Mean per-polyp sensitivity was compared between the methods by using generalized estimating equations. Mean per-patient sensitivity, and specificity were compared using the McNemar test. Results were stratified for experience (experienced observers versus novice observers). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices using cleansed 3D (65%; 95%CI 57–73%) compared with uncleansed 2D (51%; 95%CI 44–59%). For experienced observers there was no significant difference. Mean per-patient sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices as well: respectively 75% (95%CI 70–80%) versus 64% (95%CI 59–70%). For experienced observers there was no statistically significant difference. Specificity for both novices and experienced observers was not significantly different. For novices primary electronically cleansed 3D is better for polyp detection than primary uncleansed 2D