Download PDF
Endoscopy 2003; 35(9): 736-742
DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-41584
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Colonoscopy and Multidetector-Array Computed-Tomographic Colonography: Detection Rates and Feasibility

B.  Ginnerup Pedersen 1 , T.  E. M.  Christiansen 1 , N.  C.  Bjerregaard 2 , K.  Ljungmann 2 , S.  Laurberg 2
  • 1 Dept. of Radiology
  • 2 Dept. of Surgery L, Aarhus Amtssygehus, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
Further Information

Publication History

Submitted 7 March 2003

Accepted after Revision 16 March 2003

Publication Date:
20 August 2003 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Background and Study Aims: Computed-tomographic (CT) colonography has been introduced as a minimally invasive colon examination for the detection of colorectal neoplasms. The aim of this study was to compare the performance characteristics of multidetector-array CT colonography (MDCTC) and conventional colonoscopy in a prospective, blinded design.
Patients and Methods: Sixty-six symptomatic patients, 75 patients undergoing polyp and cancer surveillance, and seven patients undergoing preoperative colonoscopy due to colorectal cancer (CRC) were examined with MDCTC and subsequent colonoscopy. The gold standard was colonoscopy. If MDCTC was positive and the first-pass colonoscopy was negative, a second-pass colonoscopy served as the gold standard.
Results: Complete colonoscopy was achieved in 91 % of the patients, while technically satisfying MDCTC was obtained in 76 % of the patients (P < 0.01), insufficient air distension in the sigmoid colon being the main problem. MDCTC and colonoscopy both detected all 11 carcinomas. Overall detection rates for polypoid lesions 6 mm or larger in size were 81 % (95 % CI, 70 % to 90 %) for MDCTC and 87 % (95 % CI, 77 % to 94 %) for colonoscopy (P = 0.52), with a significant difference with regard to the detection of polyps 6 - 9 mm in size in favor of colonoscopy (P = 0.008). The specificity of MDCTC at a 6-mm level was 97 % (95 % CI, 92 % to 99 %).
Conclusions: MDCTC and colonoscopy show equal overall sensitivity for the detection of polypoid lesions 6 mm or larger in size, but more patients are inadequately examined when MDCTC is used.

References

  • 1 Silverberg E, Boring C C, Squires T S. Cancer statistics, 1990.  CA Cancer J Clin. 1990;  40 9-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Winawer S J, Stewart E T, Zauber A G. et al . A comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomy. National Polyp Study Work Group.  N Engl J Med. 2000;  342 1766-1772
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kewenter J, Brevinge H, Engaras B. et al . The yield of flexible sigmoidoscopy and double-contrast barium enema in the diagnosis of neoplasms in the large bowel in patients with a positive Hemoccult test.  Endoscopy. 1995;  27 159-163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hall C, Dorricott N J, Donovan I A. et al . Colon perforation during colonoscopy: surgical versus conservative management.  Br J Surg. 1991;  78 542-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Jentschura D, Raute M, Winter J. et al . Complications in endoscopy of the lower gastrointestinal tract: therapy and prognosis.  Surg Endosc. 1994;  8 672-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cirocco W C, Rusin L C. Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy.  Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;  38 964-968
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sieg A, Hachmoeller-Eisenbach U, Eisenbach T. Prospective evaluation of complications in outpatient GI endoscopy: a survey among German gastroenterologists.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  53 620-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dafnis G, Ekbom A, Pahlman L. et al . Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy within a defined population in Sweden.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  54 302-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wexner S D, Forde K A, Sellers G. et al . How well can surgeons perform colonoscopy?.  Surg Endosc. 1998;  12 1410-1414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hara A K, Johnson C D, Reed J E. et al . Detection of colorectal polyps with CT colography: initial assessment of sensitivity and specificity.  Radiology. 1997;  205 59-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fenlon H M, Nunes D P, Clarke P D. et al . Colorectal neoplasm detection using virtual colonoscopy: a feasibility study.  Gut. 1998;  43 806-811
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Morrin M M, Kruskal J B, Farrell R J. et al . Endoluminal CT colonography after an incomplete endoscopic colonoscopy.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;  172 913-918
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fenlon H M, McAneny D B, Nunes D P. et al . Occlusive colon carcinoma: virtual colonoscopy in the preoperative evaluation of the proximal colon.  Radiology. 1999;  210 423-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Neri E, Giusti P, Battolla L. et al . Colorectal cancer: role of CT colonography in preoperative evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy.  Radiology. 2002;  223 615-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Morrin M M, Farrell R J, Raptopoulos V. et al . Role of virtual computed tomographic colonography in patients with colorectal cancers and obstructing colorectal lesions.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;  43 303-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kronborg O. Colon polyps and cancer.  Endoscopy. 2002;  34 69-72
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fenlon H M, Nunes D P, Schroy P C. et al . A Comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.  N Engl J Med. 1999;  341 1496-1503
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Yee J, Akerkar G A, Hung R K. et al . Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients.  Radiology. 2001;  219 685-692
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mackenzie S, Vallance R, O'Dwyer P J. Virtual colonoscopy [letter].  N Engl J Med. 2000;  342 737-739
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Pescatore P, Glucker T, Delarive J. et al . Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy).  Gut. 2000;  47 126-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rex D K, Vining D, Kopecky K K. An initial experience with screening for colon polyps using spiral CT with and without CT colography (virtual colonoscopy).  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  50 309-313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rex D K, Cutler C S, Lemmel G T. et al . Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies.  Gastroenterology. 1997;  112 24-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rogalla P, Meiri N, Ruckert J C. et al . Colonography using multislice CT.  Eur J Radiol. 2000;  36 81-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone I. et al . Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): blinded prospective comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasia.  Endoscopy. 2002;  34 441-446
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ginnerup B P, Christiansen T E, Mortensen F V. et al . Bowel cleansing methods prior to CT colonography.  Acta Radiol. 2002;  43 306-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Macari M, Milano A, Lavelle M. et al . Comparison of time-efficient CT colonography with two- and three-dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;  174 1543-1549
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Grainger R G, Allison D J. Diagnostic radiology: an Anglo-American textbook of imaging. Edinburgh; Churchill Livingstone 1992 2nd ed
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Church J M. Endoscopy of the colon, rectum and anus. Tokyo; Igaku-Shoin 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Church J M. Effectiveness of polyethylene glycol antegrade gut lavage bowel preparation for colonoscopy: timing is the key!.  Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;  41 1223-1225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Altman D G. Practical statistics for medical research. London; Chapman and Hall 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Mendelson R M, Foster N M, Edwards J T. et al . Virtual colonoscopy compared with conventional colonoscopy: a developing technology.  Med J Aust. 2000;  173 472-475
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Gluecker T, Meuwly J Y, Pescatore P. et al . Effect of investigator experience in CT colonography.  Eur Radiol. 2002;  12 1405-1409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Hara A K, Johnson C D, MacCarty R L. et al . CT colonography: single- versus multi-detector row imaging.  Radiology. 2001;  219 461-465
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gluecker T, Dorta G, Keller W. et al . Performance of multidetector computed tomography colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy.  Gut. 2002;  51 207-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Macari M, Bini E J, Xue X. et al . Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection.  Radiology. 2002;  224 383-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Johnson C D, Dachman A H. CT colonography: the next colon screening examination?.  Radiology. 2000;  216 331-341
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Shinya H, Wolff W I. Morphology, anatomic distribution and cancer potential of colonic polyps.  Ann Surg. 1979;  190 679-683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

B. Ginnerup Pedersen

Dept. of Radiology, Aarhus Amtssygehus · Aarhus University Hospital

Tage Hansensgade 2 · 8000 Aarhus C · Denmark

Fax: + 45-8949-7718

Email: ginnerup-kelsen@dadlnet.dk

      >