CT colonography: implementation,indications,and technical performance

Abstract

Background

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is an accepted complement or alternative to optical colonoscopy (OC) but its implementation is incompletely analyzed, and technical performance varies between centers.

Purpose

To evaluate implementation, indications, and technical performance of CTC in Sweden and to evaluate compliance to international guidelines.

Material and Methods

A structured, self-assessed questionnaire regarding implementation and technical performance of CTC was sent to all eligible radiology departments in Sweden. Eighty-six out of 89 departments replied. Comparisons were made with similar national surveys from 2004 and 2009.

Results

The number of centers performing CTC gradually increased from 23 in 2004 to 77 in 2016. In parallel, centers performing barium enema (BE) examinations have decreased from 89 in 2004 to 13 in 2016. Main reasons stated for still performing BE were lack of resources regarding CTC/OC. Main reasons for not performing CTC were lack of suitable software, lack of machine/reading time, and lack of experience. The majority of centers follow international CTC guidelines. An important exception is fecal tagging, which was implemented in only 63% of the centers. Incomplete OC remains a major indication for CTC, while preoperative CTC in colorectal cancer and follow-up after diverticulitis have emerged as new indications.

Conclusion

CTC today is well implemented in routine healthcare but still lacking in capacity. Indications have expanded over time, and most departments perform “state of the art” CTC, although fecal tagging is incompletely implemented.

Keywords

Large bowel radiology computed tomography colonography (CTC)implementation technique indications

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Majumdar

Fletcher

Evans

. How does colorectal cancer present? Symptoms, duration and clues to location. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 3039–3045.

Halligan

Wooldrage

Dadswell

et al.

Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2013; 381: 1185–1193.

Spada

Stoker

Alarcon

et al.

Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) guideline. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 331–345.

Taylor

Laghi

Lefere

et al.

European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): Consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 575–579.

Neri

Halligan

Hellström

et al.

The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 720–729.

Fisichella

Hellström

. Availability, indications and technical performance of computed tomographic colonography: A national survey. Acta Radiol 2006; 47: 231–237.

Fisichella

Hellström

. Survey update on implementation, indications and technical performance of CT colonography in Sweden. Acta Radiol 2010; 51: 4–8.

Smyth

Healy

Aherne

et al.

National survey of CT colonography practice in Ireland. Ir Med J 2016; 10: 419–419.

Burling

Halligan

Taylor

et al.

CT colonography practice in the UK: a national survey. Clin Radiol 2004; 59: 39–43.

10.

Trilisky

Dachman

Wroblewski

et al.

CT colonography with computer-aided detection: Recognizing the causes of false-positive reader results. Radiographics 2014; 34: 1885–1905.

11.

Boone

Mallett

McQuillan

et al.

Assessment of the incremental benefit of computer-aided detection (CAD) for interpretation of CT colonography by experienced and inexperienced readers. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0136624–e0136624.

12.

Andrade

Ribeiro

Ramalho

et al.

Routine colonoscopy after acute uncomplicated diverticulitis – challenging a putative indication. Dig Surg 2017; 34: 197–202.

13.

Suhardja

Norhadi

Seah

et al.

Is early colonoscopy after CT-diagnosed diverticulitis still necessary?

Int J Colorectal Dis 2017; 32: 485–489.

14.

Sai

Velayos

Neuhaus

et al.

Colonoscopy after CT diagnosis of diverticulitis to exclude colon cancer: A systematic literature review. Radiology 2012; 263: 383–390.

15.

Rosenfeld

Brown

et al.

Colonoscopy after CT-diagnosed acute diverticulitis: Is it really necessary?

Can J Surg 2015; 58: 226–231.

16.

Zaman

Chapman

Mohammed

et al.

Patients with computed tomography-proven acute diverticulitis require follow-up to exclude colorectal cancer. Intest Res 2017; 15: 195–202.

17.

European Society of Radiology (ESR). Revised European training curriculum for radiology (March 2016). Available at: https://www.myesr.org/education/training-curricula.

18.

Lung

PFC

Burling

Kallarackel

et al.

Implementation of a new CT colonography service: 5 year experience. Clin Radiol 2014; 69: 597–605.

19.

Pendsé

Taylor

. Complications of CT colonography: A review. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: 1159–1165.

20.

Bellini

Rengo

De Cecco

et al.

Perforation rate in CT colonography: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 1487–1496.

21.

Nagata

Takabayashi

Yasuda

et al.

Adverse events during CT colonography for screening, diagnosis and preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: a Japanese national survey. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 4970–4978.

CT colonography: implementation,indications,and technical performance – a follow-up national survey

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Material and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References