Colon cancer screening with CT colonography: logistics, cost effectiveness, efficiency and progress

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality can be significantly reduced by population screening. Several different screening methods are currently in use, and this review focuses specifically on the imaging technique computed tomography colonography (CTC). The challenges and logistics of CTC screening, as well as the importance of test accuracy, uptake, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness will be discussed. With comparable advanced adenoma detection rates to colonoscopy (the most commonly used whole-colon investigation), CTC is a less invasive alternative, requiring less laxative, and with the potential benefit that it permits assessment of extra colonic structures. Three large-scale European trials have contributed valuable evidence supporting the use of CTC in population screening, and highlight the importance of selecting appropriate clinical management pathways based on initial CTC findings. Future research into CTC-screening will likely focus on radiologist training and CTC quality assurance, with identification of evidence-based key performance indicators that are associated with clinically-relevant outcomes such as the incidence of post-test interval cancers (CRC occurring after a presumed negative CTC). In comparison to other CRC screening techniques, CTC offers a safe and accurate option that is particularly useful when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses which evaluate referral thresholds, the impact of extra-colonic findings and real-world uptake will provide useful information regarding the feasibility of future CTC population screening

Effectiveness of Training in CT Colonography Interpretation: Review of Current Literature

International guidance recommends that readers be specifically trained before embarking on independent interpretation of CT colonography (CTC) examinations. Systematic comparison of both international training requirements and the effectiveness of CTC training is lacking in the published literature. Therefore, we identified available international training standards for CTC and performed a review of studies published in the last 20 years to assess the impact of CTC interpretation training on reader diagnostic accuracy. A wide variation in training requirements was observed. Studies of the effectiveness of CTC reader training were heterogenous in methodology, with large variation in sample size and the type of training administered. Although training in CTC interpretation improves reader sensitivity overall, it has varying impact on specificity. Consensus agreement on the best way to train and assess readers in CTC interpretation may lead to lasting improvements in reader performance

Training in Computed Tomographic Colonography Interpretation: Recommendations for Best Practice

The value of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as a sensitive diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer is well established. However, there is lack of consensus in the best way to achieve expertise in interpreting these studies. In this review we discuss the value of CTC training, accreditation and performance monitoring; the qualities of good CTC interpretation training, and specific training cases with associated learning points

Performance and evaluation in computed tomographic colonography screening: protocol for a cluster randomised trial

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common, important healthcare priority and improving patient outcome relies on early diagnosis. Colonoscopy and computed tomographic colonography (CTC) are commonly-used diagnostic tests. Although colonoscopists are highly regulated and must be accredited, no analogous process exists for CTC. There are currently no universally accepted radiologist performance indicators for CTC, and lack of regulatory oversight may lead to variability in quality and lower neoplasia detection rates. This study aims to determine whether a structured educational training and feedback programme can improve radiologist interpretation accuracy. / Methods: NHS England CTC reporting radiologists will be cluster randomised to either an intervention (one-day individualised training and assessment with feedback) or control (assessment with no training or feedback) arm. Each cluster represents radiologists reporting CTC in a single NHS site. Both the intervention and control arm will undertake four CTC assessments at baseline, 1-month (after training; intervention arm or enrolment; control arm), 6- and 12 months to assess their detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and 6mm+ polyps. The primary outcome will be difference in sensitivity at the 1-month test between arms. Secondary outcomes will include sensitivity at 6 and 12 months and radiologist characteristics associated with improved performance. Multilevel logistic regression will be used to analyse per-polyp and per-case sensitivity. Local ethical and Health Research Authority approval have been obtained. / Discussion: Lack of infrastructure to ensure that CTC radiologists can report adequately and lack of consensus regarding appropriate quality metrics may lead to variability in performance. Our provision of a structured education programme with feedback will evaluate the impact of individualised training and identify the factors related to improved radiologist performance in CTC reporting. An improvement in performance could lead to increased neoplasia detection and better patient outcome. / Registration: Clinical Trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02892721); available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02892721. NIHR Clinical Research Network (CPMS ID 32293)

Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?

OBJECTIVES: To determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan. METHODS: Retrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiology Information System data for CTC examinations from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015. For each examination, we determined how many prior CTCs had been interpreted by the reporting radiologist on that day and how long radiologists spent on interpretation. For each radiologist, we calculated their referral rate (proportion deemed positive for 6 mm+ polyp/cancer), positive predictive value (PPV) and endoscopic/surgically proven polyp detection rate (PDR). We also calculated the mean time each radiologist spent interpreting normal studies ("negative interpretation time"). We used multilevel logistic regression to investigate the relationship between the number of scans reported each day, negative interpretation time and referral rate, PPV and PDR. RESULTS: Five thousand one hundred ninety-one scans were interpreted by seven radiologists; 892 (17.2%) were reported as positive, and 534 (10.3%) had polyps confirmed. Both referral rate and PDR reduced as more CTCs were reported on a given day (p  20 min per case) or for too long (> 4 cases consecutively without a break). • Professional bodies should consider introducing a target minimum interpretation time for CT colonography examinations as a quality marker

Post-imaging colorectal cancer or interval cancer rates after CT colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background CT colonography is highly sensitive for colorectal cancer, but interval or post-imaging colorectal cancer rates (diagnosis of cancer after initial negative CT colonography) are unknown, as are their underlying causes. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of post-CT colonography and post-imaging colorectal cancer rates and causes to address this gap in understanding. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomised, cohort, cross-sectional, or case-control studies published between Jan 1, 1994, and Feb 28, 2017, using CT colonography done according to international consensus standards with the aim of detecting cancer or polyps, and reporting post-imaging colorectal cancer rates or sufficient data to allow their calculation. We excluded studies in which all CT colonographies were done because of incomplete colonoscopy or if CT colonography was done with knowledge of colonoscopy findings. We contacted authors of component studies for additional data where necessary for retrospective CT colonography image review and causes for each post-imaging colorectal cancer. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the study reports. Our primary outcome was prevalence of post-imaging colorectal cancer 36 months after CT colonography. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled post-imaging colorectal cancer rates, expressed using the total number of cancers and total number of CT colonographies as denominators, and per 1000 person-years. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016042437. Findings 2977 articles were screened and 12 studies were eligible for analysis. These studies reported data for 19 867 patients (aged 18–96 years; of 11 590 with sex data available, 6532 [56%] were female) between March, 2002, and May, 2015. At a mean of 34 months' follow-up (range 3–128·4 months), CT colonography detected 643 colorectal cancers. 29 post-imaging colorectal cancers were subsequently diagnosed. The pooled post-imaging colorectal cancer rate was 4·42 (95% CI 3·03–6·42) per 100 cancers detected, corresponding to 1·61 (1·11–2·33) post-imaging colorectal cancers per 1000 CT colonographies or 0·64 (0·44–0·92) post-imaging colorectal cancers per 1000 person-years. Heterogeneity was low (I2=0%). 17 (61%) of 28 post-imaging colorectal cancers were attributable to perceptual error and were visible in retrospect. Interpretation CT colonography does not lead to an excess of post-test cancers relative to colonoscopy within 3–5 years, and the low 5-year post-imaging colorectal cancer rate confirms that the recommended screening interval of 5 years is safe. Since most post-imaging colorectal cancers arise from perceptual errors, radiologist training and quality assurance could help to reduce post-imaging colorectal cancer rates