OBJECTIVE: To determine the positive predictive value (PPV) for polyps ≥ 6 mm detected at CT colonography (CTC) performed without cathartic preparation, with low-dose iodine faecal tagging regimen and to evaluate patient experience. METHODS: 1920 average-risk patients underwent CTC without cathartic preparation. Faecal tagging was performed by diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium at a total dose of 60 ml (22.2 g of iodine).The standard interpretation method was primary 3D with 2D problem solving. We calculated per-patient and per-polyp PPV in relation to size and morphology. All colonic segments were evaluated for image quality (faecal tagging, amount of liquid and solid residual faeces and luminal distension). Patients completed a questionnaire before and after CTC to assess preparation and examination experience. RESULTS: Per-polyp PPV for detected lesions of ≥ 6 mm, 6-9 mm, ≥ 10 mm and ≥ 30 mm were 94.3%, 93.1%, 94.7% and 98%, respectively. Per-polyp PPV, according to lesion morphology, was 94.6%, 97.3% and 85.1% for sessile, pedunculated and flat polyps, respectively. Per-patient PPV was 92.8%. Preparation without frank cathartics was reported to cause minimal discomfort by 78.9% of patients. CONCLUSION: CTC without cathartic preparation and low-dose iodine faecal tagging may yield high PPVs for lesions ≥ 6 mm and is well accepted by patients. KEY POINTS: • Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) without cathartic preparation is well accepted by patients • Cathartic-free faecal tagging CTC yields high positive predictive values • CTC without cathartic preparation could improve uptake of colorectal cancer screening.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the positive predictive value (PPV) for polyps ≥ 6 mm detected at CT colonography (CTC) performed without cathartic preparation, with low-dose iodine faecal tagging regimen and to evaluate patient experience. METHODS: 1920 average-risk patients underwent CTC without cathartic preparation. Faecal tagging was performed by diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium at a total dose of 60 ml (22.2 g of iodine).The standard interpretation method was primary 3D with 2D problem solving. We calculated per-patient and per-polyp PPV in relation to size and morphology. All colonic segments were evaluated for image quality (faecal tagging, amount of liquid and solid residual faeces and luminal distension). Patients completed a questionnaire before and after CTC to assess preparation and examination experience. RESULTS:Per-polyp PPV for detected lesions of ≥ 6 mm, 6-9 mm, ≥ 10 mm and ≥ 30 mm were 94.3%, 93.1%, 94.7% and 98%, respectively. Per-polyp PPV, according to lesion morphology, was 94.6%, 97.3% and 85.1% for sessile, pedunculated and flat polyps, respectively. Per-patient PPV was 92.8%. Preparation without frank cathartics was reported to cause minimal discomfort by 78.9% of patients. CONCLUSION: CTC without cathartic preparation and low-dose iodine faecal tagging may yield high PPVs for lesions ≥ 6 mm and is well accepted by patients. KEY POINTS: • Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) without cathartic preparation is well accepted by patients • Cathartic-free faecal tagging CTC yields high positive predictive values • CTC without cathartic preparation could improve uptake of colorectal cancer screening.
Authors: Michael E Zalis; Matthew A Barish; J Richard Choi; Abraham H Dachman; Helen M Fenlon; Joseph T Ferrucci; Seth N Glick; Andrea Laghi; Michael Macari; Elizabeth G McFarland; Martina M Morrin; Perry J Pickhardt; Jorge Soto; Judy Yee Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Abraham H Dachman; Damien O Dawson; Philippe Lefere; Hiro Yoshida; Nasreen U Khan; Nicole Cipriani; David T Rubin Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2006-09-13
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Andrew J Taylor; David H Kim; Mark Reichelderfer; Deepak V Gopal; Patrick R Pfau Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-09-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Thomeer; D Bielen; D Vanbeckevoort; S Dymarkowski; A Gevers; P Rutgeerts; M Hiele; E Van Cutsem; G Marchal Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-04-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Aoife N Keeling; Michael M Slattery; Sum Leong; Eoghan McCarthy; Maja Susanto; Michael J Lee; Martina M Morrin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Thomas M Gluecker; C Daniel Johnson; William S Harmsen; Kenneth P Offord; Ann M Harris; Lynn A Wilson; David A Ahlquist Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sangbu An; Kyoung Ho Lee; Young Hoon Kim; Seong Ho Park; Hyun Young Kim; Se Hyung Kim; Nayoung Kim Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sebastiaan Jensch; Shandra Bipat; Jan Peringa; Ayso H de Vries; Anneke Heutinck; Evelien Dekker; Lubbertus C Baak; Alexander D Montauban van Swijndregt; Jaap Stoker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jasper Florie; Rogier E van Gelder; Michiel P Schutter; Adrienne van Randen; Henk W Venema; Steven de Jager; Victor P M van der Hulst; Anna Prent; Shandra Bipat; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Lubbertus C Baak; Jaap Stoker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-06-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrew A Plumb; Steve Halligan; Claire Nickerson; Paul Bassett; Andrew F Goddard; Stuart A Taylor; Julietta Patnick; David Burling Journal: Gut Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Emanuele Neri; Steve Halligan; Mikael Hellström; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Daniele Regge; Jaap Stoker; Stuart Taylor; Andrea Laghi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-09-15 Impact factor: 5.315