OBJECTIVES: To assess the frequency of oral contrast coating of flat polyps, which may promote detection, and influencing factors within a screening CT colonography (CTC) population. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study performed at one institution. From 7,426 individuals, 123 patients with 160 flat polyps were extracted. Flat polyps were defined as plaque-like, raised at most 3 mm in height and reviewed for contrast coating. Factors including demographic variables such as age and sex, and polyp variables such as polyp size, location and histology were analysed for effect on coating. RESULTS: Of 160 flat polyps (mean size 9.4 mm ± 3.6), 78.8 % demonstrated coating. Mean coat thickness was 1.5 mm ± 0.6; 23.8 % (n = 30) demonstrated a thin film of contrast. Large size (≥10 mm) and proximal colonic location (relative to splenic flexure) were predictive variables by univariate logistic regression [OR (odds ratio) 3.4 (CI 1.3-8.9; p = 0.011), 2.0 (CI 1.2-3.5; p = 0.011), respectively]. Adenomas (OR 0.37, CI 0.14-1.02; p = 0.054) and mucosal polyps or venous blebs (OR 0.07, CI 0.02-0.25; p < 0.001) were less likely to coat than serrated/hyperplastic lesions. Age and sex were not predictive for coating (p = 0.417, p = 0.499, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Surface contrast coating is common for flat polyps at CTC, promoted by large size, proximal location and serrated/hyperplastic histology. Given the difficulty in detection, recognition may aid in flat polyp identification. KEY POINTS: • Oral contrast coats the surface of most flat colorectal polyps at CT colonography. • Large size, proximal colonic location and serrated/hyperplastic histology increase polyp coating. • Contrast coating increases diagnostic confidence for flat polyps. • Contrast coating may help in flat polyp detection at CTC.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the frequency of oral contrast coating of flat polyps, which may promote detection, and influencing factors within a screening CT colonography (CTC) population. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study performed at one institution. From 7,426 individuals, 123 patients with 160 flat polyps were extracted. Flat polyps were defined as plaque-like, raised at most 3 mm in height and reviewed for contrast coating. Factors including demographic variables such as age and sex, and polyp variables such as polyp size, location and histology were analysed for effect on coating. RESULTS: Of 160 flat polyps (mean size 9.4 mm ± 3.6), 78.8 % demonstrated coating. Mean coat thickness was 1.5 mm ± 0.6; 23.8 % (n = 30) demonstrated a thin film of contrast. Large size (≥10 mm) and proximal colonic location (relative to splenic flexure) were predictive variables by univariate logistic regression [OR (odds ratio) 3.4 (CI 1.3-8.9; p = 0.011), 2.0 (CI 1.2-3.5; p = 0.011), respectively]. Adenomas (OR 0.37, CI 0.14-1.02; p = 0.054) and mucosal polyps or venous blebs (OR 0.07, CI 0.02-0.25; p < 0.001) were less likely to coat than serrated/hyperplastic lesions. Age and sex were not predictive for coating (p = 0.417, p = 0.499, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Surface contrast coating is common for flat polyps at CTC, promoted by large size, proximal location and serrated/hyperplastic histology. Given the difficulty in detection, recognition may aid in flat polyp identification. KEY POINTS: • Oral contrast coats the surface of most flat colorectal polyps at CT colonography. • Large size, proximal colonic location and serrated/hyperplastic histology increase polyp coating. • Contrast coating increases diagnostic confidence for flat polyps. • Contrast coating may help in flat polyp detection at CTC.
Authors: Seong Ho Park; Hyun Kwon Ha; Ah Young Kim; Kyoung Won Kim; Moon-Gyu Lee; Pyo Nyun Kim; Yong Moon Shin; Jeong-Sik Byeon; Suk-Kyun Yang; Jin Ho Kim; Young Il Min Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Meredith A Goldwasser; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; David R Urbach; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Bryan Dustin Pooler; David H Kim; Cesare Hassan; Kristina A Matkowskyj; Richard B Halberg Journal: Gastroenterol Clin North Am Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 3.806
Authors: David H Kim; Kristina A Matkowskyj; Meghan G Lubner; J Louis Hinshaw; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; B Dustin Pooler; Jennifer M Weiss; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Manish Singla; Jean D Kemp; Michael E Goldberg; Vito V Cirigliano; Gilda M Bobele; Ganesh R Veerappan; Patrick E Young Journal: Turk J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: B Dustin Pooler; David H Kim; Jennifer M Weiss; Kristina A Matkowskyj; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J E G IJspeert; C J Tutein Nolthenius; E J Kuipers; M E van Leerdam; C Y Nio; M G J Thomeer; K Biermann; M J van de Vijver; E Dekker; J Stoker Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 10.864