Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Imaging 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Computed Tomography | Research article

Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer: a diagnostic performance study

Authors: Junping sha, Jun chen, Xuguang lv, Shaoxin liu, Ruihong chen, Zhibing zhang

Published in: BMC Medical Imaging | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Colonoscopy is the reference standard for the detection of colorectal cancer but it is an invasive technique and has the risk of bowel perforation and bleeding. Unlike colonoscopy, sedation is not required in computed tomography colonography and requires additional reassurance endoscopy. The objectives of the study were to compare the diagnostic performance of computed tomography colonography against colonoscopy for a diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

Methods

Data regarding any polyp ≥10 mm diameter (ø) and < 10 mm ø but suspicious polyps of computed tomography colonography (n = 318), colonoscopy (n = 318), and surgical pathology (n = 77) for symptomatic colorectal cancer patients were collected and analyzed. Lesion ulceration, extramural invasion, and/ or lesion shouldering was considered as a suspicious polyp. Beneficial scores for decision making of curative surgeries were evaluated for each modality. The cost of diagnosis of colorectal cancer was also evaluated.

Results

Either of diagnosis showed polyps ≥10 mm ø in 27 patients and polyps of 50 patients were < 10 mm ø but suspicious. Therefore, a total of 77 patients were subjected to surgery. With respect to surgical pathology, sensitivities for computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy were 0.961 and 0.831. For detection of ≥10 mm ø polyp, benefit score for computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy were 0–0.906 diagnostic confidence and 0.035–0.5 diagnostic confidence. For polyps, ≥ 10 mm ø but not too many large polyps, colonoscopy had the risk of underdiagnosis. For < 10 mm ø but suspicious polyps, < 0.6 mm ø and < 2.2 mm ⌀ polyps could not be detected by computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy, respectively. The computed tomographic colonography had less cost than colonoscopy (1345 ± 135 ¥/ patient vs. 1715 ± 241 ¥/ patient, p < 0.0001) for diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

Conclusion

Computed tomographic colonography would be a non-inferior alternative than colonoscopy for a diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

Level of evidence

III.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gu MJ, Huang QC, Bao CZ, Li YJ, Li XQ, Ye D, Ye ZH, Chen K, Wang JB. Attributable causes of colorectal cancer in China. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:38.CrossRef Gu MJ, Huang QC, Bao CZ, Li YJ, Li XQ, Ye D, Ye ZH, Chen K, Wang JB. Attributable causes of colorectal cancer in China. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:38.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Bernstein AM, Song M, Zhang X, Pan A, Wang M, Fuchs CS, Le N, Chan AT, Willett WC, Ogino S, Giovannucci EL, Wu K. Processed and unprocessed red meat and risk of colorectal cancer: analysis by tumor location and modification by time. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0135959.CrossRef Bernstein AM, Song M, Zhang X, Pan A, Wang M, Fuchs CS, Le N, Chan AT, Willett WC, Ogino S, Giovannucci EL, Wu K. Processed and unprocessed red meat and risk of colorectal cancer: analysis by tumor location and modification by time. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0135959.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Halligan S, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K, Wardle J, von Wagner C, Lilford R, Yao GL, Zhu S, Atkin W. Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer in older symptomatic patients: two multicentre randomised trials with economic evaluation (the SIGGAR trials). Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:1–134.CrossRef Halligan S, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K, Wardle J, von Wagner C, Lilford R, Yao GL, Zhu S, Atkin W. Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer in older symptomatic patients: two multicentre randomised trials with economic evaluation (the SIGGAR trials). Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:1–134.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K, Kralj-Hans I, von Wagner C, Edwards R, Yao G, Kay C, Burling D, Faiz O, Teare J, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Wardle J, Halligan S, SIGGAR investigators. Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381:1194–202.CrossRef Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K, Kralj-Hans I, von Wagner C, Edwards R, Yao G, Kay C, Burling D, Faiz O, Teare J, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Wardle J, Halligan S, SIGGAR investigators. Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381:1194–202.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Wang L, Mannalithara A, Singh G, Ladabaum U. Low rates of gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal complications for screening or surveillance colonoscopies in a population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:540–55.CrossRef Wang L, Mannalithara A, Singh G, Ladabaum U. Low rates of gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal complications for screening or surveillance colonoscopies in a population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:540–55.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Lovett P, Gomez V, Hodge DO, Ladlie B. Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl sedation for colonoscopy in the elderly patient population. J Perianesth Nurs. 2017;32:210–4.CrossRef Lovett P, Gomez V, Hodge DO, Ladlie B. Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl sedation for colonoscopy in the elderly patient population. J Perianesth Nurs. 2017;32:210–4.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Meiklejohn DJ, Ridley LJ, Ngu MC, Cowlishaw JL, Duller A, Ridley W. Utility of minimal preparation computed tomography colonography in detecting colorectal cancer in elderly and frail patients. Intern Med J. 2018;48:1492–8.CrossRef Meiklejohn DJ, Ridley LJ, Ngu MC, Cowlishaw JL, Duller A, Ridley W. Utility of minimal preparation computed tomography colonography in detecting colorectal cancer in elderly and frail patients. Intern Med J. 2018;48:1492–8.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Pooler BD, Lubner MG, Theis JR, Halberg RB, Liang Z, Pickhardt PJ. Volumetric textural analysis of colorectal masses at CT colonography: differentiating benign versus malignant pathology and comparison with human reader performance. Acad Radiol. 2019;26:30–7.CrossRef Pooler BD, Lubner MG, Theis JR, Halberg RB, Liang Z, Pickhardt PJ. Volumetric textural analysis of colorectal masses at CT colonography: differentiating benign versus malignant pathology and comparison with human reader performance. Acad Radiol. 2019;26:30–7.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Correale L, Delsanto S, Regge D, Hassan C. CT colonography performance for the detection of polyps and cancer in adults ≥ 65 years old: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211:40–51.CrossRef Pickhardt PJ, Correale L, Delsanto S, Regge D, Hassan C. CT colonography performance for the detection of polyps and cancer in adults ≥ 65 years old: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211:40–51.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Yee J, McFarland E. Extracolonic findings and radiation at CT colonography: what the referring provider needs to know. Abdom Radiol. 2018;43:554–65.CrossRef Yee J, McFarland E. Extracolonic findings and radiation at CT colonography: what the referring provider needs to know. Abdom Radiol. 2018;43:554–65.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM, Naber SK, Doria-Rose VP, Pabiniak C, Johanson C, Fischer SE, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Kuntz KM. Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: modeling study for the us preventive services task force. JAMA. 2016;315:2595–609.CrossRef Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM, Naber SK, Doria-Rose VP, Pabiniak C, Johanson C, Fischer SE, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Kuntz KM. Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: modeling study for the us preventive services task force. JAMA. 2016;315:2595–609.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Halligan S, Wooldrage K, Dadswell E, Kralj-Hans I, von Wagner C, Edwards R, Yao G, Kay C, Burling D, Faiz O, Teare J, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Wardle J, Atkin W, SIGGAR investigators. Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381:1185–93.CrossRef Halligan S, Wooldrage K, Dadswell E, Kralj-Hans I, von Wagner C, Edwards R, Yao G, Kay C, Burling D, Faiz O, Teare J, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Wardle J, Atkin W, SIGGAR investigators. Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381:1185–93.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Columb MO, Atkinson MS. Statistical analysis: sample size and power estimations. BJA Educ. 2015;16:159–61.CrossRef Columb MO, Atkinson MS. Statistical analysis: sample size and power estimations. BJA Educ. 2015;16:159–61.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Li J, Yu Y, Zhu L, Li Y, He Q. Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for biliary tract intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (BT-IPMN): A diagnostic performance analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e920952 1–9.PubMedPubMedCentral Li J, Yu Y, Zhu L, Li Y, He Q. Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for biliary tract intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (BT-IPMN): A diagnostic performance analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e920952 1–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference von Wagner C, Ghanouni A, Halligan S, Smith S, Dadswell E, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Atkin W, Wardle J, Investigators SIGGAR. Patient acceptability and psychologic consequences of CT colonography compared with those of colonoscopy: results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial of symptomatic patients. Radiology. 2012;263:723–31.CrossRef von Wagner C, Ghanouni A, Halligan S, Smith S, Dadswell E, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Atkin W, Wardle J, Investigators SIGGAR. Patient acceptability and psychologic consequences of CT colonography compared with those of colonoscopy: results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial of symptomatic patients. Radiology. 2012;263:723–31.CrossRef
16.
17.
go back to reference Halligan S, Wooldrage K, Dadswell E, Shah U, Kralj-Hans I, von Wagner C, Faiz O, Teare J, Edwards R, Kay C, Yao G, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Wardle J, Atkin W, Investigators SIGGAR. Identification of extracolonic pathologies by computed tomographic colonography in colorectal cancer symptomatic patients. Gastroenterology. 2015;149:89–101.CrossRef Halligan S, Wooldrage K, Dadswell E, Shah U, Kralj-Hans I, von Wagner C, Faiz O, Teare J, Edwards R, Kay C, Yao G, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Wardle J, Atkin W, Investigators SIGGAR. Identification of extracolonic pathologies by computed tomographic colonography in colorectal cancer symptomatic patients. Gastroenterology. 2015;149:89–101.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Neri E, Halligan S, Hellstrom M, Lefere P, Mang T, Regge D, Stoker J, Taylor S, Laghi A, ESGAR CT Colonography Working Group. The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:720–9.CrossRef Neri E, Halligan S, Hellstrom M, Lefere P, Mang T, Regge D, Stoker J, Taylor S, Laghi A, ESGAR CT Colonography Working Group. The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:720–9.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference van der Meulen MP, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Goede SL, Kuipers EJ, Dekker E, Stoker J, van Ballegooijen M. Colorectal cancer: cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy versus CT colonography screening with participation rates and costs. Radiology. 2018;287:901–11.CrossRef van der Meulen MP, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Goede SL, Kuipers EJ, Dekker E, Stoker J, van Ballegooijen M. Colorectal cancer: cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy versus CT colonography screening with participation rates and costs. Radiology. 2018;287:901–11.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ. Cost-effectiveness of CT colonography. Radiol Clin N Am. 2013;51:89–97.CrossRef Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ. Cost-effectiveness of CT colonography. Radiol Clin N Am. 2013;51:89–97.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer: a diagnostic performance study
Authors
Junping sha
Jun chen
Xuguang lv
Shaoxin liu
Ruihong chen
Zhibing zhang
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2342
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-020-00446-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Imaging 1/2020 Go to the issue