Colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of mortality worldwide, and early detection is essential for improving outcomes. CT colonography (CTC) has emerged as a promising alternative to optical colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. This article explores the potential of CTC in Japan, focusing on quality control, patient acceptability, complications, and its role in screening programs. CTC has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for detecting colorectal polyps, with its diagnostic performance comparable to colonoscopy for lesions ≥ 10 mm. Techniques such as fecal tagging and dual-position imaging significantly enhance diagnostic accuracy. However, the variability in diagnostic outcomes underscores the need for rigorous interpretation training and quality control. The American College of Radiology recommends training with at least 50 cases verified by colonoscopy. Despite its advantages, the adoption of CTC in Japan remains limited due to low awareness among medical professionals, a shortage of trained radiologists, and the absence of specific guidelines endorsing its use. Patient acceptability for CTC is high due to its non-invasive nature, shorter examination time, and reduced bowel preparation requirements compared to colonoscopy. Nonetheless, complications such as bowel perforation, albeit rare, necessitate careful risk assessment. While CTC has been recognized in the U.S. and Europe for screening and diagnostic follow-up, its integration into Japan's colorectal cancer screening guidelines is crucial to expand its utilization. To maximize the benefits of CTC, efforts must focus on standardizing methodologies, establishing quality indicators, and generating robust evidence on mortality reduction and cost-effectiveness.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US.

To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC.

Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events.

The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm.

There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.

CT colonography has emerged as the investigation of choice for suspected colorectal cancer in patients when a colonoscopy in incomplete, is deemed high risk or is declined because of patient preference. Unlike a traditional colonoscopy, it frequently reveals extracolonic as well as colonic findings. Our study aimed to determine the prevalence, characteristics and potential significance of extracolonic findings on CT colonography within our own institution. A retrospective review was performed of 502 patients who underwent CT colonography in our institution between January 1, 2010 and January 4, 2015. Of 502 patients, 60.63% had at least one extracolonic finding. This was close to other similar-sized studies (Kumar et al. Radiology 236(2):519-526, 2005). However, our rate of E4 findings was significantly higher than that reported in larger studies at 5.3%(Pooler et al. AJR 206:313-318, 2016). The difference may be explained by our combination of symptomatic/screening patients or by the age and gender distribution of our population. Our study lends support to the hypothesis that CT colonography may be particularly useful in identifying clinically significant extracolonic findings in symptomatic patients. CT colonography may allow early identification of extracolonic malignancies and life-threatening conditions such as an abdominal aortic aneurysm at a preclinical stage when they are amenable to medical or surgical intervention. However, extracolonic findings may also result in unnecessary investigations for subsequently benign findings.

1: ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 - 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

This review summarizes the relevant literature regarding colorectal screening with imaging. For individuals at average or moderate risk for colorectal cancer, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer screening. After positive results on a fecal occult blood test or immunohistochemical test, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer detection. For individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer (eg, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn colitis), optical colonoscopy is preferred because of its ability to obtain biopsies to detect dysplasia. After incomplete colonoscopy, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer screening for individuals at average, moderate, or high risk. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

To compare the distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes between screening and diagnostic CT colonography (CTC) populations.

388 consecutive patients (369 men, 19 women; mean ± SD age 67.8 ± 10 years) who underwent first-time CTC (4/2011-4/2017) at a Veteran's Affairs Medical Center were divided into screening (asymptomatic) or diagnostic (symptomatic) cohorts based on CTC indication. CTC reporting and data system E-scores for extracolonic findings were retrospectively assigned based on prospective CTC radiologic reports. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the association between E-scores and CTC indication. Electronic medical records of all patients with E3 or E4 scores were reviewed (median follow-up 2.8 years) to determine clinical outcomes.

68% (262/388) underwent screening and 32% (126/388) diagnostic CTC. 7.2% (28/388) had extracolonic findings considered potentially significant (E4), 4.4% (17/388) had indeterminate but likely unimportant findings (E3), and 88.4% (347/388) had normal or unimportant findings (E1 or E2). E-scores were not significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC when adjusted for age, gender, and prior imaging (p = 0.44). 4.6% (12/262) of patients with E3/E4 findings in the screening cohort demonstrated clinically significant outcomes, compared with 4.0% (5/126) in the diagnostic cohort, including a total of three extracolonic malignancies (0.8%) and three abdominal aortic aneurysms (0.8%). 4.6% (18/388) underwent follow-up imaging studies to confirm a benign outcome after detection of a category E3/E4 finding.

The distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC populations.

A better understanding of the risks and benefits of extracolonic findings and radiation dose will aid in the safe and proper implementation of CT colonography in clinical practice. The majority of extracolonic findings in screening patients are benign and can be ignored by referring physicians. Radiologists also need to be responsible in reporting extracolonic findings. Referring providers must be knowledgeable about the theoretic risks and controversies regarding the use of ionizing radiation. Screening CT colonography imparts a low-level of radiation to patients that is equivalent or less than annual background dose.

CT colonography (CTC) is a widely accepted examination tool for detection of colorectal lesions but evidence of the proportions of relevant extracolonic findings (ECF) in a large symptomatic but still relatively low-risk cohort is lacking, as well as their relationship to symptoms, age, and sex.

All patients (n = 3208) with colorectal symptoms, imaged between January 2007 and September 2016 with first-time CTC, were retrospectively selected. The majority (96.7%) was examined with low-dose unenhanced protocol. The most relevant ECF and colorectal lesions (≥6 mm) were prospectively assessed according to C-RADS classifications. Follow-up was elaborated based on the electronic record review. Chi-square test was utilized for evaluating the associations between relevant findings and symptoms, age, and sex.

A total of 270 (8.4%) patients were classified as C-RADS E3, 63 (2.0%) patients as C-RADS E4, and 437 (13.6%) patients were assessed with colorectal lesions (C-RADS C2-4). At follow-up, two thirds of ECF turned out to be a malignancy or relevant disease that required further medical attention. The proportion of ECF was not related to specific colorectal symptoms. Patients aged ≥65 years and men had significantly higher proportions of ECF than younger patients (C-RADS E3 p = 0.005; C-RADS E4 p < 0.001) and women (C-RADS E3 p = 0.013; C-RADS E4 p = 0.009), respectively.

Proportions of relevant ECF and colorectal findings are relatively low in symptomatic low-risk patients. By use of CTC as a singular examination, especially in elderly patients, most colonoscopies can be avoided with the benefit of diagnosing relevant ECF without introducing substantial over-diagnosis.

The purpose of this study is to assess differences in patient distress, risk perception, and treatment preferences for incidental renal findings with descriptive versus combined descriptive and numeric graphical risk information.

A randomized survey study was conducted for adult patients about to undergo outpatient imaging studies at a large urban academic institution. Two survey arms contained either descriptive or a combination of descriptive and numeric graphical risk information about three hypothetical incidental renal findings at CT: 2-cm (low risk) and 5-cm (high risk) renal tumors and a 2-cm (low risk) renal artery aneurysm. The main outcomes were patient distress, perceived risk (qualitative and quantitative), treatment preference, and valuation of lesion discovery.

Of 374 patients, 299 participated (79.9% response rate). With inclusion of numeric and graphical, rather than only descriptive, risk information about disease progression for a 2-cm renal tumor, patients reported less worry (3.56 vs 4.12 on a 5-point scale; p < 0.001) and favored surgical consultation less often (29.3% vs 46.9%; p = 0.003). The proportion choosing surgical consultation for the 2-cm renal tumor decreased to a similar level as for the renal artery aneurysm with numeric risk information (29.3% [95% CI, 21.7-36.8%] and 27.9% [95% CI, 20.5-35.3%], respectively). Patients overestimated the absolute risk of adverse events regardless of risk information type, but significantly more so when given descriptive information only, and valued the discovery of lesions regardless of risk information type (range, 4.41-4.81 on a 5-point scale).

Numeric graphical risk communication for patients about incidental renal lesions may facilitate accurate risk comprehension and support patients in informed decision making.

Terahertz (THz) imaging is progressing as a robust platform for myriad applications in the field of security, health, and material science. The THz regime, which comprises wavelengths spanning from microns to millimeters, is non-ionizing and has very low photon energy: Making it inherently safe for biological imaging. Colorectal cancer is one of the most common causes of death in the world, while the conventional screening and standard of care yet relies exclusively on the physician's experience. Researchers have been working on the development of a flexible THz endoscope, as a potential tool to aid in colorectal cancer screening. This involves building a single-channel THz endoscope, and profiling the THz response from colorectal tissue, and demonstrating endogenous contrast levels between normal and diseased tissue when imaging in reflection modality. The current level of contrast provided by the prototype THz endoscopic system represents a significant step towards clinical endoscopic application of THz technology for in-vivo colorectal cancer screening. The aim of this paper is to provide a short review of the recent advances in THz endoscopic technology and cancer imaging. In particular, the potential of single-channel THz endoscopic imaging for colonic cancer screening will be highlighted.

To examine factors influencing primary care provider (PCP) adoption of CT colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

We performed a retrospective cohort study linking electronic health record (EHR) data with PCP survey data. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were not up-to-date with CRC screening and if they had CTC insurance coverage in the year prior to survey administration. PCPs were included if they had at least one eligible patient in their panel and completed the survey (final sample N = 95 PCPs; N = 6245 patients). Survey data included perceptions of CRC screening by any method, as well as CTC specifically. Multivariate logistic regression estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for PCP and clinic predictors of CRC screening by any method and screening with CTC.

Substantial variation in CTC use was seen among PCPs and clinics (range 0-16% of CRC screening). Predictors of higher CTC use were PCP perceptions that CTC is effective in reducing CRC mortality, higher number of perceived advantages to screening with CTC, and Internal Medicine specialty. Factors not associated with CTC use were PCP perceptions of less organizational capacity to meet demand for colonoscopy, number of perceived disadvantages to screening with CTC, PCP age and gender, and clinic factors.

Significant variation in PCP adoption of CTC exists. PCP perceptions of CTC and specialty practice were related to CTC adoption. Strategies to increase PCP adoption of CTC for CRC screening should include emphasis on the effectiveness and advantages of CTC.

Planning imaging performed during CT-guided procedures may occasionally contain important incidental findings. The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize by clinical relevance the extraspinal findings detected on planning imaging for CT-guided lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs).

Four radiologists retrospectively evaluated the planning scout views and CT studies for 488 consecutive CT-guided lumbar TFESIs performed in 400 patients over a 1-year period. Incidental extraspinal findings were identified and used to characterize patients by the need for follow-up using the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS), a classification scheme originally developed to characterize incidental findings on CT colonography. Patients with C-RADS E4 findings have potentially important findings that should be communicated to the referring physician; patients with C-RADS E3 findings have findings that are likely unimportant, but workup may be indicated. All previously unknown C-RADS E3 and E4 findings discovered in the course of this research were reported to referring physicians for appropriate patient follow-up.

Ten of 400 (2.5%) patients were classified as C-RADS E4; the most common C-RADS E4 finding was vascular aneurysm or stenosis (4/400, 1.0%). Thirteen of 400 (3.3%) patients were classified as C-RADS E3; the most common C-RADS E3 finding was hepatomegaly (4/400, 1.0%). Of 22 patients with C-RADS E3 and E4 findings unknown to clinicians, the finding for only one (4.5%) was communicated to clinicians at the time of the procedure.

Clinically important incidental extraspinal findings were identified in 5.8% of patients on the planning imaging performed for CT-guided lumbar TFESIs. Communication of clinically important findings was poor (4.5%).

CT colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive radiological investigation of the colon. Robust evidence indicates that CTC is safe, well tolerated and highly accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and large polyps, which are the targets of screening. Randomized controlled trials were carried out in Europe to evaluate CTC as the primary test for population screening of CRC in comparison with faecal immunochemical test (FIT), sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were participation rate and detection rate. Participation rate for screening CTC was in the range of 25-34%, whereas the detection rate of CTC for CRC and advanced adenoma was in the range of 5.1-6.1%. Participation for CTC screening was lower than that for FIT, similar to that for sigmoidoscopy and higher than that for colonoscopy. The detection rate of CTC was higher than that of one FIT round, similar to that of sigmoidoscopy and lower than that of colonoscopy. However, owing to the higher participation rate in CTC screening with respect to colonoscopy screening, the detection rates per invitee of CTC and colonoscopy would be comparable. These results justify consideration of CTC in organized screening programmes for CRC. However, assessment of other factors such as polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral, management of extracolonic findings and, most importantly, the forthcoming results of cost-effectiveness analyses are crucial to define the role of CTC in primary screening.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the incidence and outcomes of unsuspected indeterminate but likely unimportant extracolonic findings (CT Colonography Reporting and Data System [C-RADS] category E3) at screening CT colonography (CTC).

Over 99 months (April 2004 through June 2012), 7952 consecutive adults without symptoms of colorectal cancer (4277 women, 3675 men; mean age ± SD, 56.7 ± 7.3 years) underwent first-time screening CTC. Findings prospectively placed into C-RADS category E3 were retrospectively reviewed, including follow-up (range, 2-10 years) and ultimate clinical outcome.

Unsuspected C-RADS category E3 extracolonic findings were detected in 9.1% (725/7952) of our patient population. A total of 751 category E3 findings were detected among these 725 patients; 25 patients had multiple findings. Commonly involved organ systems included gynecologic (24.4%, 183/751), genitourinary (20.9%, 157/751), lung (20.6%, 155/751), and gastrointestinal (16.1%, 121/751). Consideration for further imaging, if clinically warranted, was suggested in 83.8% (608/725). Sixty-five patients were lost to follow-up. Conditions requiring treatment or surveillance were ultimately diagnosed in 8.3% (55/660), including eight malignant neoplasms. In the remaining 605 patients, 25 (4.1%) underwent invasive biopsy or surgery to prove benignity (including 18 complex adnexal masses), and 278 (46.0%) received additional imaging follow-up.

Indeterminate but likely unimportant extracolonic findings (C-RADS category E3) occurred in less than 10% of adults without symptoms of colorectal cancer who underwent screening CTC. Over 90% of these findings ultimately proved to be clinically insignificant, with fewer than 5% requiring an invasive procedure to prove benign disease, the majority of which (> 70%) were complex adnexal lesions in women.

This study evaluated the role of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in patients who previously underwent incomplete optical colonoscopy (OC). We analyzed the impact of colonic lesions in intestinal segments not studied by OC and extracolonic findings in these patients.

Between January 2014 and May 2015, 61 patients with a history of abdominal pain and incomplete OC examination were studied by CTC. CTCs were performed by 320-row CT scan in both the supine and the prone position, without intravenous administration of contrast medium. In all patients both colonic findings and extracolonic findings were evaluated.

Among the study group, 24 CTC examinations were negative for both colonic and extracolonic findings while 6 examinations revealed the presence of both colonic and extracolonic findings. In 24 patients CTC depicted colonic anomalies without extracolonic ones, while in 7 patients it showed extracolonic findings without colonic ones.

CTC is a noninvasive imaging technique with the advantages of high diagnostic performance, rapid data acquisition, minimal patient discomfort, lack of need for sedation, and virtually no recovery time. CTC accurately allows the evaluation of the nonvisualized part of the colon after incomplete OC and has the distinct advantage to detect clinically important extracolonic findings in patients with incomplete OC potentially explaining the patient's symptoms and conditioning their therapeutic management.

CTC accurately allows the assessment of both colonic and extracolonic pathologies representing a useful diagnostic tool in patients for whom complete OC is not achievable.

This study aimed to determine the prevalence, importance, and types of incidental findings (IF) in non-enhanced CT scans performed for suspected renal colic, based on ACR white papers and other accepted radiographic recommendations.

Retrospective review of 5,383 consecutive finalized reports of nonenhanced CT using renal colic protocol performed on adult patients at 2 emergency departments over a 5.5-year period. IF were defined as those unrelated to symptoms (as opposed to alternate causes of symptoms) and were categorized as "important" if follow-up was recommended based on recently published consensus recommendations. Subsets of reports of those with important IF were blindly re-reviewed to calculate inter-rater variability for presence and categorization of important IF.

Important IF were identified in 12.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.8%-13.6%) of scans. Prevalence of important IF increased with age: important IF in individuals age >80 years were 4 times more common than for those aged 18-30 years: 28.9% (95% CI: 22.4%-36.4%) versus 6.9% (95% CI: 5.5%-8.6%), respectively, P ≤ .05. Women had a higher prevalence of important IF compared with men: 13.4% (95% CI: 12.2%-14.7%) versus 11.9% (95% CI: 10.7%-13.2%), but the difference was not statically significant (P = .09). There was substantial inter-rater agreement (kappa ≥ 0.69) regarding presence and classification of important IFs using published guidelines.

Important IF occurred in 12.7% of non-enhanced CT scans performed for suspected renal colic in the emergency department and are more common in older individuals. Prospective studies that use radiographic recommendations to characterize IF and examine the outcome and cost of their workup are encouraged.

Renal calculi are common extracolonic incidental findings on computed tomographic colonography (CTC). This work aims to develop a fully automated computer-aided diagnosis system to accurately detect renal calculi on CTC images.

The authors developed a total variation (TV) flow method to reduce image noise within the kidneys while maintaining the characteristic appearance of renal calculi. Maximally stable extremal region (MSER) features were then calculated to robustly identify calculi candidates. Finally, the authors computed texture and shape features that were imported to support vector machines for calculus classification. The method was validated on a dataset of 192 patients and compared to a baseline approach that detects calculi by thresholding. The authors also compared their method with the detection approaches using anisotropic diffusion and nonsmoothing.

At a false positive rate of 8 per patient, the sensitivities of the new method and the baseline thresholding approach were 69% and 35% (p < 1e - 3) on all calculi from 1 to 433 mm(3) in the testing dataset. The sensitivities of the detection methods using anisotropic diffusion and nonsmoothing were 36% and 0%, respectively. The sensitivity of the new method increased to 90% if only larger and more clinically relevant calculi were considered.

Experimental results demonstrated that TV-flow and MSER features are efficient means to robustly and accurately detect renal calculi on low-dose, high noise CTC images. Thus, the proposed method can potentially improve diagnosis.

To compare differences in Medicare costs 1 year after initial computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or initial optical colonoscopy (OC).

We performed a retrospective cohort study of asymptomatic Medicare outpatients aged ≥ 66 years who received initial CTC (n = 531) or OC (n = 17,593) between January 2007 and December 2008; initial OC patients were matched on county of residence and year of screening. Outcomes included differences in total inpatient and outpatient Medicare costs 1 year after initial CTC or OC and differences in outpatient testing of potential findings in the colon, abdomen, pelvis, and lungs.

Higher adjusted costs per patient were revealed in the year after initial CTC compared to initial OC for outpatient testing related to potential colonic ($50; 95% confidence interval [CI], $12-$88; P = .010) and extracolonic findings ($64; 95% CI, $23-$106; P = .002). However, there were no differences in adjusted total costs per patient in the year after either modality ($2065; 95% CI, $1672-$5803; P = .28). Similarly, adjusted costs did not differ between cohorts for inpatient ($267; 95% CI, $1017-$1550; P = .68) or outpatient care ($2828; 95% CI, $311-$5966; P = .08).

Despite higher adjusted costs of outpatient testing potentially related to colonic and extracolonic findings among asymptomatic elderly patients 1 year after initial CTC compared to OC, we found no differences in adjusted total, inpatient, or outpatient costs between cohorts. Although Medicare does not cover screening CTC, our results suggest that these modalities generate comparable downstream costs to payers.

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a relatively new diagnostic test that may be superior to existing alternatives to investigate the large bowel.

To compare the diagnostic efficacy, acceptability, safety and cost-effectiveness of CTC with barium enema (BE) or colonoscopy.

Parallel randomised trials: BE compared with CTC and colonoscopy compared with CTC (randomisation 2 : 1, respectively).

A total of 21 NHS hospitals.

Patients aged ≥ 55 years with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (CRC).

CTC, BE and colonoscopy.

For the trial of CTC compared with BE, the primary outcome was the detection rate of CRC and large polyps (≥ 10 mm), with the proportion of patients referred for additional colonic investigation as a secondary outcome. For the trial of CTC compared with colonoscopy, the primary outcome was the proportion of patients referred for additional colonic investigation, with the detection rate of CRC and large polyps as a secondary outcome. Secondary outcomes for both trials were miss rates for cancer (via registry data), all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, patient acceptability, extracolonic pathology and cost-effectiveness.

A total of 8484 patients were registered and 5384 were randomised and analysed (BE trial: 2527 BE, 1277 CTC; colonoscopy trial: 1047 colonoscopy, 533 CTC). Detection rates in the BE trial were 7.3% (93/1277) for CTC, compared with 5.6% (141/2527) for BE (p = 0.0390). The difference was due to better detection of large polyps by CTC (3.6% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.0098), with no significant difference for cancer (3.7% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.66). Significantly more patients having CTC underwent additional investigation (23.5% vs. 18.3%; p = 0.0003). At the 3-year follow-up, the miss rate for CRC was 6.7% for CTC (three missed cancers) and 14.1% for BE (12 missed cancers). Significantly more patients randomised to CTC than to colonoscopy underwent additional investigation (30% vs. 8.2%; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in detection rates for cancer or large polyps (10.7% for CTC vs. 11.4% for colonoscopy; p = 0.69), with no difference when cancers (p = 0.94) and large polyps (p = 0.53) were analysed separately. At the 3-year follow-up, the miss rate for cancer was nil for colonoscopy and 3.4% for CTC (one missed cancer). Adverse events were uncommon for all procedures. In 1042 of 1748 (59.6%) CTC examinations, at least one extracolonic finding was reported, and this proportion increased with age (p < 0.0001). A total of 149 patients (8.5%) were subsequently investigated, and extracolonic neoplasia was diagnosed in 79 patients (4.5%) and malignancy in 29 (1.7%). In the short term, CTC was significantly more acceptable to patients than BE or colonoscopy. Total costs for CTC and colonoscopy were finely balanced, but CTC was associated with higher health-care costs than BE. The cost per large polyp or cancer detected was £4235 (95% confidence interval £395 to £9656).

CTC is superior to BE for detection of cancers and large polyps in symptomatic patients. CTC and colonoscopy detect a similar proportion of large polyps and cancers and their costs are also similar. CTC precipitates significantly more additional investigations than either BE or colonoscopy, and evidence-based referral criteria are needed. Further work is recommended to clarify the extent to which patients initially referred for colonoscopy or BE undergo subsequent abdominopelvic imaging, for example by computed tomography, which will have a significant impact on health economic estimates.

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95152621.

Symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer may originate outside the colorectum. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is used to examine the colorectum and abdominopelvic organs simultaneously. We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial to quantify the frequency, nature, and consequences of extracolonic findings.

We studied 5384 patients from 21 UK National Health Service hospitals referred by their family doctor for the investigation of colorectal cancer symptoms from March 2004 through December 2007. The patients were assigned randomly to groups that received the requested test (barium enema or colonoscopy, n = 3574) or CTC (n = 1810). We determined the frequency and nature of extracolonic findings, subsequent investigations, ultimate diagnosis, and extracolonic cancer diagnoses 1 and 3 years after testing patients without colorectal cancer.

Extracolonic pathologies were detected in 959 patients by CTC (58.7%), in 42 patients by barium enema analysis (1.9%), and in no patients by colonoscopy. Extracolonic findings were investigated in 142 patients (14.2%) and a diagnosis was made for 126 patients (88.1%). Symptoms were explained by extracolonic findings in 4 patients analyzed by barium enema (0.2%) and in 33 patients analyzed by CTC (2.8%). CTC identified 72 extracolonic neoplasms, however, barium enema analysis found only 3 (colonoscopy found none). Overall, CTC diagnosed extracolonic neoplasms in 72 of 1634 patients (4.4%); 26 of these were malignant (1.6%). There were significantly more extracolonic malignancies detected than expected 1 year after examination, but these did not differ between patients evaluated by CTC (22.2/1000 person-years), barium enema (26.5/1000 person-years; P = .43), or colonoscopy (32.0/1000 person-years; P = .88).

More than half of the patients with symptoms of colorectal cancer are found to have extracolonic pathologies by CTC analysis. However, the proportion of patients found to have extracolonic malignancies after 1 year of CTC examination is not significantly greater than after barium enema or colonoscopy examinations. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials no: 95152621.isrctn.com.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. The introduction of CRC screening programmes using stool tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy, have been shown to reduce CRC-related mortality substantially. In several European countries, population-based CRC screening programmes are ongoing or being rolled out. Stool tests like faecal occult blood testing are non-invasive and simple to perform, but are primarily designed to detect early invasive cancer. More invasive tests like colonoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) aim at accurately detecting both CRC and cancer precursors, thus providing for cancer prevention. This review focuses on the accuracy, acceptance and safety of CTC as a CRC screening technique and on the current position of CTC in organised population screening. Based on the detection characteristics and acceptability of CTC screening, it might be a viable screening test. The potential disadvantage of radiation exposure is probably overemphasised, especially with newer technology. At this time-point, it is not entirely clear whether the detection of extracolonic findings at CTC is of net benefit and is cost effective, but with responsible handling, this may be the case. Future efforts will seek to further improve the technique, refine appropriate diagnostic algorithms and study cost-effectiveness.

Since positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has been introduced, many incidental findings have been identified. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical significance of incidental findings on PET/CT in patients with gastric cancer.

A total of 421 patients with gastric cancer underwent PET/CT for initial staging. Incidental findings on PET/CT were classified into five categories according to clinical significance--normal variant, benign, probably benign, probably malignant, and definitely malignant. We obtained information regarding follow-up examinations, additional visits, final diagnosis of incidental findings and short-term medical costs for further evaluation.

Eight hundred eighty-two incidental findings were detected in 386 (91.7%) patients. Of 274 incidental findings classified as probably benign, probably malignant or definitely malignant, 130 required one or more additional investigations. Finally, 12 (9.2%) were proved to be associated with second primary malignancy or metastasis of gastric cancer. One hundred twenty-nine additional outpatient visits and 10 additional hospitalizations were needed for evaluating the incidental findings. The treatment strategy for gastric cancer was changed in one patient. The estimated cost of additional investigations was $US283 (95% CI: $US248-$US311) per patient.

Incidental findings on PET/CT were common. Although the incidental findings were suspicious of malignancy, most were benign with high costs for additional investigations.

To determine the maximum rate of false-positive diagnoses that patients and health care professionals were willing to accept in exchange for detection of extracolonic malignancy by using computed tomographic (CT) colonography for colorectal cancer screening.

After obtaining ethical approval and informed consent, 52 patients and 50 health care professionals undertook two discrete choice experiments where they chose between unrestricted CT colonography that examined intra- and extracolonic organs or CT colonography restricted to the colon, across different scenarios. The first experiment detected one extracolonic malignancy per 600 cases with a false-positive rate varying across scenarios from 0% to 99.8%. One experiment examined radiologic follow-up generated by false-positive diagnoses while the other examined invasive follow-up. Intracolonic performance was identical for both tests. The median tipping point (maximum acceptable false-positive rate for extracolonic findings) was calculated overall and for both groups by bootstrap analysis.

The median tipping point for radiologic follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate greater than 99.8% (interquartile ratio [IQR], 10 to >99.8%). Participants would tolerate at least a 99.8% rate of unnecessary radiologic tests to detect an additional extracolonic malignancy. The median tipping-point for invasive follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate of 10% (IQR, 2 to >99.8%). Tipping points were significantly higher for patients than for health care professionals for both experiments (>99.8 vs 40% for radiologic follow-up and >99.8 vs 5% for invasive follow-up, both P < .001).

Patients and health care professionals are willing to tolerate high rates of false-positive diagnoses with CT colonography in exchange for diagnosis of extracolonic malignancy. The actual specificity of screening CT colonography for extracolonic findings in clinical practice is likely to be highly acceptable to both patients and health care professionals. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Renal lesions are important extracolonic findings on computed tomographic colonography (CTC). They are difficult to detect on non-contrast CTC images due to low image contrast with surrounding objects. In this paper, we developed a novel computer-aided diagnosis system to detect a subset of renal lesions, exophytic lesions, by (1) exploiting efficient belief propagation to segment kidneys, (2) establishing an intrinsic manifold diffusion on kidney surface, (3) searching for potential lesion-caused protrusions with local maximum diffusion response, and (4) exploring novel shape descriptors, including multi-scale diffusion response, with machine learning to classify exophytic renal lesions. Experimental results on the validation dataset with 167 patients revealed that manifold diffusion significantly outperformed conventional shape features (p<1e-3) and resulted in 95% sensitivity with 15 false positives per patient for detecting exophytic renal lesions. Fivefold cross-validation also demonstrated that our method could stably detect exophytic renal lesions. These encouraging results demonstrated that manifold diffusion is a key means to enable accurate computer-aided diagnosis of renal lesions.

To map the view of surgeons on the role played by computed tomography colonography (CTC).

An electronic questionnaire was sent to members of the Brazilian College of Surgeons. The questionnaire consisted of 16 multiple-choice questions about demographics and general knowledge about CTC.

The authors obtained 144 responses; 90.3% of the specialists were men, 60% with less than 30 years from graduation, 77.1% were gastrointestinal surgeons, 22.9% were general surgeons, 53.5% were involved in academic activity, and 59.7% had their professional activity in cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants. As regards the knowledge about CTC, 84.7% of the respondents knew the method, 70.8% knew how it is performed, 56.9% reported knowing the bowel preparation used for the procedure, 31.3% used the method, and 53.5% knew some CTC service in their city. About half of the respondents did not know the precise indication of the method. The method is most frequently known and used by professionals working in cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants (p < 0.005). There was a tendency of a more frequent use of the method by the professionals pursuing an academic career.

Despite its infrequent use in Brazil, CTC is a well known method, particularly in large urban centers and in the academic environment.

To determine whether intravenous contrast (IVC) is necessary for detection of extracolonic findings (ECFs) in patients undergoing CT colonography (CTC).

We performed a retrospective review of CT findings in 179 cases of CTC studies performed over 18 months where both pre-contrast (NECT) and post-contrast (CECT) scans were performed in the prone and supine positions, respectively, in the same patients. All ECFs were recorded on a per patient basis and graded according to the colonography reporting and data system classification.

There was no significant change in E grade for the cohort (p = 0.171) between the NECT and CECT scans. On the CECT scans, additional findings were detected in 49.1% of patients. Overall, there were 27/179 (15.1%) patients graded E3 and 18/179 (10.1%) patients graded E4 on the CECT study. Compared with the NECT study, there was a decrease of 12.9% of patients graded E3 and no change in the number of patients graded E4.

With IVC administration, additional ECFs are detected in nearly half of all patients. However, there was no increase in the number of patients with clinically significant lesions. The risk-benefit ratio of routine IVC administration for CTC in symptomatic patients thus requires further evaluation.

This study reviews the utility of IVC in CTC and is thus relevant to current clinical practice at many institutions.

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is now an established method for imaging the colon and rectum in the screening and symptomatic setting. Additional benefit of CTC is the ability to assess for extracolonic findings especially in patients presenting with colorectal symptoms.

To determine prevalence of extracolonic findings (ECF) in symptomatic patients undergoing CTC and determine accuracy of CTC for exclusion of significant abdominal disease and extracolonic malignancy (ECM).

A total of 1359 unenhanced prone and postcontrast supine CTC studies were performed between March 2002 and December 2007. ECF were retrospectively classified according to C-RADS criteria into E1 to E4 findings. For ECM, a gold standard of clinical and/or radiological follow-up supplemented with data from the regional cancer registry with a median follow-up of 42 months was created. Sensitivity and negative predictive values for ECM was calculated.

Following exclusions, 1177 CTCs were analyzed. Of 1423 extracolonic findings reported, 328/1423 (23%) E3 and 100/1423 (7%) E4 (including six eventual FP studies) findings were identified. Thirty-two ECMs were confirmed following further investigations. Seven further small ECMs were detected during the entire follow-up, of which two were potentially visible in retrospect (false-negative studies). Additional tests were generated from 55/1177 (4.7%) studies. Sensitivity and negative predictive value for ECM was 94.1% (95% CI 78.9-98.9%) and 99.8% (95% CI 99.3-99.9%), respectively.

One in 37 patients were found to have an ECM. Two potentially detectable cancers were missed. Only a small proportion of patients underwent additional work-up.

CT colonography (CTC) has been fully validated as an accurate screening test for colorectal carcinoma and is being disseminated globally. There is an abundance of new literature addressing the prior concerns of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Specific areas related to radiation dose, extracolonic findings, and generalizability of CTC to senior patients are discussed.

The time has arrived for national reimbursement of CTC in the United States.

This study summarizes the literature on the detection of cancer among indeterminate extracolonic findings on computed tomographic (CT) colonography in five targeted organs.

We searched PubMed for English-language literature published between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2010. We describe extracolonic findings in the kidney, lung, liver, pancreas, and ovary suspect for malignancy as they are associated with high mortality. For each organ, we calculated the median prevalence, positive predictive value (PPV), and false positive rate of malignancy and a pooled false-positive rate across studies.

Of 91 publications initially identified, 24 were eligible for review. Indeterminate renal masses on CT colonography had 20.5% median PPV and low pooled false positive rate of 1.3% (95% confidence interval 0.6-2.0). In contrast, indeterminate masses of the lung, liver, pancreas, and ovary had low PPV (median values ranged from 0% to 3.8%). Indeterminate masses of the ovary resulted in the highest pooled false-positive rate of 2.2%. Results were similar in studies of both screening and nonscreening populations. We estimated the probability of false positive results through the detection of significant extracolonic findings as 46 per 1000 for men and 68 per 1000 for women.

Indeterminate renal masses newly detected on CT colonography have an estimated one in five chance of malignancy and therefore warrant further follow-up to provide a definitive diagnosis. Conversely, indeterminate masses of the lung, liver, pancreas, and ovary are associated with high false positive rates and merit more conservative clinical follow-up.

Computed tomography-colonography is a diagnostic modality that can be used when the colon is not completely intubated during colonoscopy. It may have the additional advantage that information on extracolonic lesions can be obtained.

The aim of this study was to investigate the yield of CT-colonography of relevant intra- and extracolonic findings in patients after incomplete colonoscopy.

This was an observational, retrospective study.

Data were be obtained from standardized radiology and endoscopy reports and electronic medical records.

In total, 136 consecutive CT-colonographies performed after incomplete colonoscopy were evaluated.

All intra- and extracolonic findings on CT-colonography were recorded and interpreted for clinical relevance, and it was determined whether further diagnostic and/or therapeutic workup was indicated.

Major indications for colonoscopy included iron-deficiency anemia (25.7%), hematochezia (20.6%), change in bowel habits (18.4%), and colorectal cancer screening or surveillance (11.0%). Major reasons for incomplete colonoscopy were a fixed colon (34.6%) and strong angulation of the sigmoid colon (17.6%). Introduction of the colonoscope was limited to the left-sided colon in 53.7% of cases. Incomplete colonoscopy detected colorectal cancer in 12 (8.8%) patients and adenomatous polyps in 27 (19.9%) patients. CT-colonography after incomplete colonoscopy additionally revealed 19 polyps in 15 (11.0%) and a nonsynchronous colorectal cancer in 4 (2.9%) patients. CT-colonography also detected extracolonic findings with clinical consequences in 8 (5.9%) patients, including fistulizing diverticulitis (n = 3), gastric tumor (n = 2), liver abscess (n = 1), osteomyelitis (n = 1), and an infected embolus in both renal arteries (n = 1).

This study was limited by the lack of confirmation of intraluminal CT-colonography findings in a subset of patients.

Computed tomography-colonography can be of added value in patients with incomplete colonoscopy, because it revealed 27 relevant additional (both intra- and extracolonic) lesions in 19.1% of patients. In cases where CT-colonography detected colorectal cancer after incomplete colonoscopy, it can also be used for staging purposes.

We evaluated outcomes of patients 65 years old and older who underwent CT colonography (CTC) between 2004 and 2009.

The frequency of referral to colonoscopy based on a polyp size threshold of 6 mm was 14.5%. Colorectal neoplasia was found in 9.3% of patients, with advanced neoplasia in 3.3%. Potentially important extracolonic findings were observed in 2.9% of patients. The low rates of referral to colonoscopy, prevalence of advanced neoplasia, and prevalence of extracolonic findings make CTC a viable option for Medicare-aged patients.

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer in males and the fourth most common in females in Korea. Since the most of colorectal cancer occur through the prolonged transformation of adenomas into carcinomas, early detection and removal of colorectal adenomas are one of the most effective methods to prevent colorectal cancer. Considering the increasing incidence of colorectal cancer and polyps in Korea, it is very important to establish Korean guideline for colorectal cancer screening and polyp detection. Korean Multi-Society Take Force developed the guidelines with evidence-based methods. Parts of the statements drawn by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Herein we discussed the epidemiology of colorectal cancers and adenomas in Korea, optimal screening methods for colorectal cancer, and detection for adenomas including fecal occult blood tests, radiologic tests, and endoscopic examinations.