PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the sensitivity of computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) with that of colonoscopy for detecting patients with colorectal polyps in an asymptomatic screening population in Korea, thus to evaluate a possibility, whether CTC could be used as a screening tool for colorectal polyps. METHODS: A total of 241 asymptomatic adults underwent intravenous contrast-enhanced CTC and colonoscopy successively on the same day. Bowel preparation was performed by 4 L of polyethylene glycol (n=172) or 90 mL of sodium phosphate (n=69). The CTC findings were released to the colonoscopists after the first examination of each segment, a procedure known as segmental unblinded colonoscopy, and were used as the reference standard. The diagnostic performance of CTC for colorectal polyps was calculated. RESULTS: The per-patient sensitivities of CTC were 68.5% (37/54) and 86.7% (13/15) for polyp > or = 6 and > or = 10 mm, inferior to those of colonoscopy, 92.6% (50/54) and 100% (15/15), respectively. The per-polyp sensitivities of CTC were 60.4% (61/101) and 72.7% (16/22) for polyp > or = 6 and > or = 10 mm, respectively. The low sensitivity of CTC was related with flat morphology. CTC detected only 37.5% (9/24) of flat polyps > or = 6 mm. Bowel preparation by sodium phosphate further decreased the positive predictive value and specificity than by polyethylene glycol. CONCLUSIONS: Screening by CTC with asymptomatic population was not promising in Korea despite using advanced CT technology (16-row detector). Bowel preparation was one of the key determinants of the specificity of CTC.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the sensitivity of computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) with that of colonoscopy for detecting patients with colorectal polyps in an asymptomatic screening population in Korea, thus to evaluate a possibility, whether CTC could be used as a screening tool for colorectal polyps. METHODS: A total of 241 asymptomatic adults underwent intravenous contrast-enhanced CTC and colonoscopy successively on the same day. Bowel preparation was performed by 4 L of polyethylene glycol (n=172) or 90 mL of sodium phosphate (n=69). The CTC findings were released to the colonoscopists after the first examination of each segment, a procedure known as segmental unblinded colonoscopy, and were used as the reference standard. The diagnostic performance of CTC for colorectal polyps was calculated. RESULTS: The per-patient sensitivities of CTC were 68.5% (37/54) and 86.7% (13/15) for polyp > or = 6 and > or = 10 mm, inferior to those of colonoscopy, 92.6% (50/54) and 100% (15/15), respectively. The per-polyp sensitivities of CTC were 60.4% (61/101) and 72.7% (16/22) for polyp > or = 6 and > or = 10 mm, respectively. The low sensitivity of CTC was related with flat morphology. CTC detected only 37.5% (9/24) of flat polyps > or = 6 mm. Bowel preparation by sodium phosphate further decreased the positive predictive value and specificity than by polyethylene glycol. CONCLUSIONS: Screening by CTC with asymptomatic population was not promising in Korea despite using advanced CT technology (16-row detector). Bowel preparation was one of the key determinants of the specificity of CTC.
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