Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports
Published in: Current Colorectal Cancer Reports 4/2017

01-08-2017 | Genetic Syndromes, Screening, and Surveillance in Colorectal Cancer (N Kubiliun, Section Editor)

The Role of CT Colonography as a Screening Tool for Colorectal Cancer

Authors: Vasantha Vasan, Cecelia Brewington

Published in: Current Colorectal Cancer Reports | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Most colorectal cancers (CRC) are preventable through screening and polyp removal; however, CRC remains fixed as the second leading cause of cancer mortality in the USA. This is largely due to suboptimal screening participation. This review of current literature explores the use of CT colonography (CTC), also known as virtual colonoscopy, as another option for CRC screening. Relevant recent research topics include exploring the elimination of pre-procedure colon cleansing, the extension of recommended CTC screening intervals, the implications of extracolonic findings, and the significance of CTC radiation dose in a benefit/risk analysis. Peer-reviewed literature supports CTC as a viable option to safely screen average and moderate risk patients for CRC with polyps and cancer detection rates comparable to optical colonoscopy. CTC has the potential to raise CRC screening rates in population health management efforts.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(5):1570–95. doi:10.​1053/​j.​gastro.​2008.​02.​002.CrossRefPubMed
3.
•• Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Davidson KW, Epling JW, García FA, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564–75. doi:10.​1001/​jama.​2016.​5989. This statement by the US Preventive Services Task Force strongly recommends colon cancer screening for adults starting at age 50. The USPSTF also recommends CT colonography as a safe and beneficial screening exam in reducing the prevalence and mortality of colon cancer in the population. CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
6.
•• Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, Rutter CM, Webber EM, O’Connor E, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2576–94. doi:10.​1001/​jama.​2016.​3332. This article reviews over 95 studies that have been conducted for CT screening information since the USPSTF published their original recommendation in 2008. The article reviews the test performance of CT colonography to optical colonoscopy and found that both exams provide equivalent results with CT colonography having little to no risk of serious adverse events. The article also evaluates the decreased radiation dose exposure in CT screening exams (approximately 1–5 mSv). CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, Schoenfeld PS, Burke CA, Inadomi JM, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(3):739–50. doi:10.​1038/​ajg.​2009.​104.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
15.
Yoo TW, Park DI, Kim YH, Kim HS, Kim WH, Kim TI, et al. Clinical significance of small colorectal adenoma less than 10 mm: the KASID study. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2007;54(74):418–21.PubMed
16.
17.
18.
19.
•• Pickhardt PJ, Pooler BD, Mbah I, Weiss JM, Kim DH. Colorectal findings at repeat CT colonography screening after initial CT colonography screening negative for polyps larger than 5 mm. Radiology, 2017. 282(1):139–48. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​2016160582. Pickhardt’s article supports the evidence based screening interval of 5–10 years for screening patients receiving a negative initial CTC screening exam. The article also supports the non-reporting management strategy for diminutive lesions since cancer rates are very low in these lesions.
20.
21.
22.
•• Yee J, Chang KJ, Dachman AH, Kim DH, EG MF, Pickhardt PJ, et al. The added value of the CT colonography reporting and data system. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(8):931–5. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jacr.​2016.​04.​031. Several experts in the field of CT colonography express their support of C-RADS as a first step towards a standardized reporting system for the assessment and management strategy of colonic and extracolonic findings with the potential to evolve. The acceptance of C-RADS and E-RADS has been adapted for the ACR’s CTC National Data Registry with the potential of broad acceptance. CrossRefPubMed
23.
Cash BD, Riddle MS, Bhattacharya I, Barlow D, Jensen D, del Pino NM, et al. CT colonography of a Medicare-aged population: outcomes observed in an analysis of more than 1400 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(1):W27–34. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​11.​7729.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
26.
Kim DH, Matkowskyj KA, Lubner MG, Hinshaw JL, Munoz Del Rio A, Pooler BD, et al. Serrated polyps at CT colonography: prevalence and characteristics of the serrated polyp Spectrum. Radiology. 2016;280(2):455–63. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​2016151608.CrossRefPubMed
27.
• Coppola F, Regge D, Flor N, Papadopoulos D, Golfieri R. Flat lesions missed at conventional colonoscopy (CC) and visualized by CT colonography (CTC): a pictorial essay. Abdom Imaging. 2014;39(1):25–32. doi:10.​1007/​s00261-013-0052-2. This study evaluates the experience of false negative findings incurred with conventional colonoscopy that were simultaneously positively identified by CT colonography and confirmed with a second endoscopy. Coppola finds CT colonography is comparable to colonoscopy as a screening exam. CrossRefPubMed
28.
Sakamoto T, Mitsuzaki K, Utsunomiya D, Matsuda K, Yamamura S, Urata J, et al. Detection of flat colorectal polyps at screening CT colonography in comparison with conventional polypoid lesions. Acta Radiol. 2012;53(7):714–9. doi:10.​1258/​ar.​2012.​110685.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
31.
• Utano K, Nagata K, Honda T, Mitsushima T, Yasuda T, Kato T, et al. Diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of reduced-laxative CT colonography for the detection of polypoid and non-polypoid neoplasms: a multicenter prospective trial. Radiology. 2017;282(2):399–407. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​2016160320. This study evaluates the comparable diagnostic accuracy in neoplasms larger than 6 mm and the increased patient acceptance rate for reduced-laxative CT colonography. Utano also discusses CT colonography as an efficient triage examination for patients with a positive FIT. Higher patient acceptance can lead to increased screening rates and detection of colonic neoplasms. CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Borden ZS, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Lubner MG, Agriantonis DJ, Hinshaw JL. Bowel preparation for CT colonography: blinded comparison of magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate for catharsis. Radiology. 2010;254(1):138–44. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​09090398.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
36.
Cai W, Yoshida H. Electronic cleansing in CT colonography: past, present, and future. In: Yoshida H, Cai W, editors. Virtual Colonoscopy and Abdominal Imaging. Computational Challenges and Clinical Opportunities: Second International Workshop, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2010, Beijing, China, September 20, 2010, Revised Selected Papers. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2011. p. 1–8.
37.
38.
39.
Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J, de Vries AH, Heutinck A, Dekker E, et al. CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(1):146–56. doi:10.​1007/​s00330-009-1517-0.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Shinners TJ, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Jones DA, Olsen CH. Patient-controlled room air insufflation versus automated carbon dioxide delivery for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(6):1491–6. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​05.​0416.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Burling D, Taylor SA, Halligan S, Gartner L, Paliwalla M, Peiris C, et al. Automated insufflation of carbon dioxide for MDCT colonography: distension and patient experience compared with manual insufflation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(1):96–103. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​04.​1506.CrossRefPubMed
42.
43.
Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, Bossuyt PM, van Ballegooijen M, Nio CY, et al. Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(1):55–64. doi:10.​1016/​S1470-2045(11)70283-2.CrossRefPubMed
44.
45.
An S, Lee KH, Kim YH, Park SH, Kim HY, Kim SH, et al. Screening CT colonography in an asymptomatic average-risk Asian population: a 2-year experience in a single institution. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(3):W100–6. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​07.​3367.CrossRefPubMed
46.
47.
48.
The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Mission, Policies & Procedures. In: AAPM. The American Association of Phisicists in Medicine. 2016. http://​aapm.​org/. Accessed January 17 2017.
49.
• Lambert L, Danes J, Jahoda J, Masek M, Lisy J, Ourednicek P. Submilisievert ultralow-dose CT colonography using iterative reconstruction technique: a feasibility study. Acta radiologica. 2015;56(5):517–25. This study demonstrates the potential for radiation doses in CT colonography to be less than 1 mSv in both prone and supine imaging acquisitions. Decreased risk and increased benefits for patient safety is essential in an efficient CT colonography screening program. CrossRefPubMed
50.
51.
Berrington de González A, Kim KP, Knudsen AB, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Rutter CM, Smith-Bindman R, et al. Radiation-related cancer risks from CT colonography screening: a risk-benefit analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(4):816–23. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​10.​4907.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Meiners RJ, Wyatt KS, Hanson ME, Barlow DS, et al. Colorectal and extracolonic cancers detected at screening CT colonography in 10,286 asymptomatic adults. Radiology. 2010;255(1):83–8. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​09090939.CrossRefPubMed
53.
•• Pooler BD, Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ. Potentially important extracolonic findings at screening CT colonography: incidence and outcomes data from a clinical screening program. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2016;206(2):313–8. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​15.​15193. Pooler writes in support of the E-RADS reporting system and the necessity of follow-up for category E4 findings that could prove to be clinically significant. Although uncommon, extracolonic findings increase the patient’s standard of care and can aid in the surveillance or treatment of once unknown findings. CrossRefPubMed
54.
•• Plumb AA, Boone D, Fitzke H, Helbren E, Mallett S, Zhu S, et al. Detection of extracolonic pathologic findings with CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment of perceived benefits versus harms. Radiology. 2014;273(1):144–52. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​14131678. This article demonstrates patient and provider tolerance for extracolonic findings in order to diagnose an occasional malignancy. Thus, strengthening the need for a standardized reporting system such as E-RADS. CrossRefPubMed
55.
von Wagner C, Ghanouni A, Halligan S, Smith S, Dadswell E, Lilford RJ, et al. 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(3):723–31. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​12111523.CrossRef
56.
57.
•• Pyenson B, Pickhardt PJ, Sawhney TG, Berrios M. Medicare cost of colorectal cancer screening: CT colonography vs. optical colonoscopy. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(8):2966–76. doi:10.​1007/​s00261-015-0538-1. Pyenson evaluates the cost effectiveness of CT colonography screenings when compared to optical colonoscopy. Lower expenses for Medicare patients can increase screening rates for colon cancer. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Christie J, Itzkowitz S, Lihau-Nkanza I, Castillo A, Redd W, Jandorf L. A randomized controlled trial using patient navigation to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income minorities. J Natl Med Assoc. 2008;100(3):278–84.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Percac-Lima S, Grant RW, Green AR, Ashburner JM, Gamba G, Oo S, et al. A culturally tailored navigator program for colorectal cancer screening in a community health center: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(2):211–7. doi:10.​1007/​s11606-008-0864-x.CrossRefPubMed
60.
61.
Dietrich AJ, Tobin JN, Robinson CM, Cassells A, Greene MA, Dunn VH, et al. Telephone outreach to increase colon cancer screening in medicaid managed care organizations: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(4):335–43. doi:10.​1370/​afm.​1469.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
62.
63.
64.
65.
Metadata
Title
The Role of CT Colonography as a Screening Tool for Colorectal Cancer
Authors
Vasantha Vasan
Cecelia Brewington
Publication date
01-08-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1556-3790
Electronic ISSN: 1556-3804
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-017-0378-1

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Current Colorectal Cancer Reports 4/2017 Go to the issue

Basic Science Foundations in Colorectal Cancer (J Roper, Section Editor)

Resistance Mechanisms to Colorectal Cancer Therapeutics and the Clinical Implications

Genetic Syndromes, Screening, and Surveillance in Colorectal Cancer (N Kubiliun, Section Editor)

Adenomatous Polyposis Syndromes: Familial Adenomatous Polyposis and MutYH-Associated Polyposis

Genetic Syndromes, Screening, and Surveillance in Colorectal Cancer (N Kubiliun, Section Editor)

Quality Colorectal Cancer Screening: Endoscopic Performance Measures and Beyond

Radiation Therapy and Radiation Therapy Innovations in Colorectal Cancer (JY Wo, Section Editor)

Clinical Target Volume Definition in Preoperative Radiotherapy of Rectal Carcinoma: a Systematic Review

Systemic Therapies in Colorectal Cancer (RD Kim, Section Editor)

Treatment of Refractory Colorectal Cancer: Regorafenib vs. TAS-102

Radiation Therapy and Radiation Therapy Innovations in Colorectal Cancer (JY Wo, Section Editor)

Biomarkers that Predict Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits