AIM: In this retrospective study, we assess the current role and future potential of computed tomographic (CT) colonography as a viable alternative imaging tool for colorectal polyp detection and colon cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients have undergone virtual colonographic examinations with 64-multidetector-row spiral CT (MDCT), and three-dimensional images were created on a separate workstation that had the appropriate software for image processing. Images were reviewed by a radiologist, and anatomic division of the entire colon was used to locate the suspected lesions. Characteristics of bowel preparation, intracolonic, extracolonic, and incidental findings were noted, too. RESULTS: Ten of the 20 patients (50%) had a positive CT colonography for polypoid lesions. Those lesions were distributed into the cecum (4 cases), colon ascendens (2 cases), colon descendens (2 cases), and sigma (2 cases). In 80%, bowel preparation was good, in 15% moderate, and in 5% inadequate. Furthermore, CT scan noted in total 20 incidental findings. CONCLUSION: CT colonography is currently a viable alternative imaging tool for colorectal polyp detection. There are several clinical situations where CT colonography may play an important role in patient care. These include for example evaluation of the colon after an incomplete conventional colonoscopic examination or evaluation in patients who are clinically unfit to undergo conventional colonoscopy. At centers where there is expertise in data acquisition and interpretation, CT colonography is being offered as a routine imaging examination. With continued improvements in bowel preparation, colonic distention, and CT colonography interpretation by sufficient numbers of radiologists this technology might have a substantial influence on colon cancer screening.
AIM: In this retrospective study, we assess the current role and future potential of computed tomographic (CT) colonography as a viable alternative imaging tool for colorectal polyp detection and colon cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients have undergone virtual colonographic examinations with 64-multidetector-row spiral CT (MDCT), and three-dimensional images were created on a separate workstation that had the appropriate software for image processing. Images were reviewed by a radiologist, and anatomic division of the entire colon was used to locate the suspected lesions. Characteristics of bowel preparation, intracolonic, extracolonic, and incidental findings were noted, too. RESULTS: Ten of the 20 patients (50%) had a positive CT colonography for polypoid lesions. Those lesions were distributed into the cecum (4 cases), colon ascendens (2 cases), colon descendens (2 cases), and sigma (2 cases). In 80%, bowel preparation was good, in 15% moderate, and in 5% inadequate. Furthermore, CT scan noted in total 20 incidental findings. CONCLUSION: CT colonography is currently a viable alternative imaging tool for colorectal polyp detection. There are several clinical situations where CT colonography may play an important role in patient care. These include for example evaluation of the colon after an incomplete conventional colonoscopic examination or evaluation in patients who are clinically unfit to undergo conventional colonoscopy. At centers where there is expertise in data acquisition and interpretation, CT colonography is being offered as a routine imaging examination. With continued improvements in bowel preparation, colonic distention, and CT colonography interpretation by sufficient numbers of radiologists this technology might have a substantial influence on colon cancer screening.