OBJECTIVE: Virtual colonoscopy (VC)/CT colonography has advantages over the well-documented limitations of colonoscopy/barium enema. This prospective blinded investigative comparison trial aimed to evaluate the ability of VC to assess the large bowel, compared to conventional colonoscopy (CC), in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHOD: We studied 150 patients (73 males, mean age 60.9 years) at high risk of CRC. Following bowel preparation, VC was undertaken using colonic insufflation and 2D-spiral CT acquisition. Two radiologists reported the images and a consensual agreement reached. Direct comparison was made with CC (performed later the same day). Interobserver agreement was calculated using the Kappa method. Postal questionnaires sought patient preference. RESULTS: Virtual colonoscopy visualized the caecum in all cases. Five (3.33%) VCs were classified as inadequate owing to poor distension/faecal residue. CC completion rate was 86%. Ultimately, 44 patients had normal findings, 44 had diverticular disease, 11 had inflammatory bowel disease, 18 had cancers, and 33 patients had 42 polyps. VC identified 19 cancers--a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 99.2% respectively. For detecting polyps > 10 mm, VC had a sensitivity and specificity (per patient) of 91% and 99.2% respectively. VC identified four polyps proximal to stenosing carcinomas and extracolonic malignancies in nine patients (6%). No procedural complications occurred with either investigation. A Kappa score achieved for interobserver agreement was 0.777. CONCLUSION: Virtual colonoscopy is an effective and safe method for evaluating the bowel and was the investigation of choice amongst patients surveyed. VC provided information additional to CC on both proximal and extracolonic pathology. VC may become the diagnostic procedure of choice for symptomatic patients at high risk of CRC, with CC being reserved for therapeutic intervention, or where a tissue diagnosis is required.
OBJECTIVE: Virtual colonoscopy (VC)/CT colonography has advantages over the well-documented limitations of colonoscopy/barium enema. This prospective blinded investigative comparison trial aimed to evaluate the ability of VC to assess the large bowel, compared to conventional colonoscopy (CC), in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHOD: We studied 150 patients (73 males, mean age 60.9 years) at high risk of CRC. Following bowel preparation, VC was undertaken using colonic insufflation and 2D-spiral CT acquisition. Two radiologists reported the images and a consensual agreement reached. Direct comparison was made with CC (performed later the same day). Interobserver agreement was calculated using the Kappa method. Postal questionnaires sought patient preference. RESULTS: Virtual colonoscopy visualized the caecum in all cases. Five (3.33%) VCs were classified as inadequate owing to poor distension/faecal residue. CC completion rate was 86%. Ultimately, 44 patients had normal findings, 44 had diverticular disease, 11 had inflammatory bowel disease, 18 had cancers, and 33 patients had 42 polyps. VC identified 19 cancers--a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 99.2% respectively. For detecting polyps > 10 mm, VC had a sensitivity and specificity (per patient) of 91% and 99.2% respectively. VC identified four polyps proximal to stenosing carcinomas and extracolonic malignancies in nine patients (6%). No procedural complications occurred with either investigation. A Kappa score achieved for interobserver agreement was 0.777. CONCLUSION: Virtual colonoscopy is an effective and safe method for evaluating the bowel and was the investigation of choice amongst patients surveyed. VC provided information additional to CC on both proximal and extracolonic pathology. VC may become the diagnostic procedure of choice for symptomatic patients at high risk of CRC, with CC being reserved for therapeutic intervention, or where a tissue diagnosis is required.
Authors: M Elisabeth Del Giudice; Emily T Vella; Amanda Hey; Marko Simunovic; William Harris; Cheryl Levitt Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Otto S Lin; Richard A Kozarek; Michael Gluck; Geoffrey C Jiranek; Johannes Koch; Kris V Kowdley; Shayan Irani; Matthew Nguyen; Jason A Dominitz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Jaap Stoker; Onofre Alarcon; Federico Barbaro; Davide Bellini; Michael Bretthauer; Margriet C De Haan; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Monika Ferlitsch; Steve Halligan; Emma Helbren; Mikael Hellstrom; Ernst J Kuipers; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Emanuele Neri; Lucio Petruzziello; Andrew Plumb; Daniele Regge; Stuart A Taylor; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alessia Chini; Michele Manigrasso; Grazia Cantore; Rosa Maione; Marco Milone; Francesco Maione; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: Clin Endosc Date: 2022-02-24