Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

To compare the accuracy of multi-slice spiral computerized tomography (MSCT) with colonoscopy for diagnosing synchronous colorectal carcinoma (SCC).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients admitted to our institution with colorectal carcinoma between 19 September 2014 and 31 January 2020. Data on SCC patients who had undergone MSCT and colonoscopy were analyzed. Information on tumor location, tumor size, missed diagnosis by MSCT or colonoscopy, T stage, pathological type, and reasons for missed diagnosis was recorded and used to assess the diagnostic accuracies of MSCT and colonoscopy.

Results

Twenty-three cases met the inclusion criteria. MSCT plus colonoscopy had a significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (93.5%) than colonoscopy alone. There were significant differences in missed diagnosis rates of proximal cancer (34.8%) and distal cancer (4.3%) by colonoscopy. For MSCT, the missed diagnosis rate for tumors with a median long diameter of 1.25 cm (interquartile range 0.80, 1.50) was significantly lower than that for larger tumors (long diameter 4.00 cm; 3.00, 6.00).

Conclusions

MSCT is a valuable diagnostic tool for SCC that can effectively minimize the missed diagnosis rate of primary tumors when combined with colonoscopy.

Keywords

Abdomen computed tomography colorectal carcinoma endoscopy large bowel technology assessment

Introduction

Synchronous colorectal carcinoma (SCC) is defined as two or more primary colorectal cancers occurring simultaneously or within 6 months after the first colorectal cancer.¹ Although the detection of multiple primary malignant neoplasms is rare, recent advances have gradually increased their detection rate. The incidence of synchronous multiple primary cancers ranges from 1% to 8%,² while that of metachronous multiple primary cancers is 0.18% to 9%.³

SCC and single colorectal cancer have similar prognoses in terms of accurate diagnosis and surgical resection.⁴ A missed cancer diagnosis thus has serious implications, and high diagnostic accuracy significantly improves the survival rates and prognoses. Multi-slice spiral computerized tomography (MSCT) and colonoscopy are widely used to localize, diagnose, stage, and preoperatively assess colorectal cancer. However, most studies of MSCT have focused on single tumors,^5
–13 and few have studied its use in SCC.^1,14
–16 Various factors can affect colonoscopy, including failure to reach the cecum and view the entire colon, which may in turn contribute to a missed diagnosis.^17,18 We encounter a high missed diagnosis rate of SCC in the first colonoscopy in our daily practice, while MSCT performs well for diagnosing SCC.

In this study, we retrospectively analyzed data from SCC patients who had undergone MSCT and colonoscopy. We compared the approaches in terms of diagnostic accuracy, missed diagnosis rates of proximal and distal parts of SCCs, the causes of missed diagnosis, and impacts of tumor T stage and pathological type on the missed diagnosis.

Materials and methods

The reporting of this study conforms to the STROBE guidelines.¹⁹

Study population

We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients (n = 2909) admitted for colorectal carcinoma between 19 September 2014 and 31 January 2020, and collected data for patients with synchronous multiple primary colorectal carcinomas who had complete clinical and imaging data available at our institute (The Affiliated Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Southwest Medical University). The diagnostic inclusion criteria were: 1) cancer diagnosis confirmed by pathology; 2) colorectal cancers diagnosed at the same time or within 6 months; 3) tumors located in different intestinal segments or adjacent intestinal segments (if in the same intestinal segment, tumors had to be of different pathological types, or at least 2 cm apart); 4) each tumor had pathological features and transfer pathways; and 5) T stage Tis or T1 to 4. The exclusion criteria were: 1) colorectal cancers with local recurrences; 2) patients with ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis; and 3) T stage TX or T0. This was a retrospective study that did not require approval by the institutional ethics committee, and the need for informed consent was waived.

MSCT scanning device

CT scans were carried out using a second-generation dual-source CT (Somatom Definition Flash, Siemens, Forchheim, Germany) following intravenous injection of contrast material, with the following scanning parameters: voltage: 120 kV; current: 350 mA, thickness and layer spacing: 5 mm. The images were reconstructed using 1-mm overlapping slice thickness and 1-mm intervals and loaded onto the picture archiving and communications system (syngo.via workstation; Siemens). Scans were conducted using 80 to 100 mL of a contrast agent with an iodine content of 370 mg/mL (Ultravist 370, Bayer, Berlin, Germany) administered at a flow rate of 3.0 mL/s.

Bowel preparation was carried out prior to colonoscopy. The day before the examination, all patients were advised to eat a light and easily digestible diet and to avoid indigestible food (e.g. maize, potato, peanut, apple, pear, grape, shiitake mushroom, flammulina). At 4 to 6 hours before the examination, all patients were then instructed to take 2 to 3 L (250 mL/10 minutes) isotonic solution mixed with polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder within 2 hours. The patients were asked to walk appropriately during the medication period and then press their abdomen lightly to speed up excretion. If the patient was admitted for intestinal obstruction, colonoscopy was completed after releasing the intestinal obstruction.

Two senior radiologists viewed and recorded the general data for the SCC patients and the location and size of the tumors. They also recorded missed diagnoses for MSCT and the first colonoscopy, and assessed the reasons for the missed diagnosis of SCC. Tumor T stage and pathological type were evaluated by a senior pathologist.

Tumors were grouped as follows: right-sided colon (cecum, ascending colon, and right half of the transverse colon), left-sided colon (left half of transverse colon and descending colon), and rectosigmoid colon (rectum and sigmoid colon).

Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Measured data with a normal distribution were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and differences between two groups were compared by independent-sample t-tests. Non-normally distributed data and graded data were expressed as median and quartiles (Q1; Q3), and differences between two groups were compared by the Mann–Whitney U test. Counted data were compared between paired samples using McNemar’s test and between independent samples using the χ² test. All statistical tests were two-sided with a test level (α) of 0.05. Causes of missed diagnoses according to the two methods were evaluated based on the frequency of occurrence.

Results

Twenty-three patients met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1), including 18 men and 5 women (mean age 66.2 years (range 33–82 years). Sixteen patients had a history of smoking and 12 had a history of alcohol consumption. Clinically, the main presentations were abdominal pain and changes in stool characteristics. One patient had intussusception and six had ileus. Fifteen patients were positive for tumor markers, including CEA, CA125, CA19-9, and CA72-4.

Figure 1.

Flow diagram of the study.

Of the 23 SCC patients, 3 were in the right-sided colon group (1 ascending colon and ascending colon cancer and 2 hepatic flexure and transverse colon cancer), 1 was in the right and left-sided colon groups (ascending colon and splenic flexure cancer), 7 were in the right-sided and rectosigmoid colon groups (Figures 2 and 3) (1 ascending colon and sigmoid colon cancer, 1 ascending colon and rectal cancer, 1 hepatic flexure and sigmoid colon cancer, 2 hepatic flexure and rectal cancer, 2 transverse colon and rectal cancer), 2 were in the left-sided and rectosigmoid colon groups (1 transverse colon and rectal cancer and one splenic flexure and sigmoid colon cancer), and 7 were in the rectosigmoid colon group (1 sigmoid colon and sigmoid colon cancer, 3 sigmoid colon and rectal cancer, and 3 rectal and rectal cancer).

Figure 2.

A 33-year-old man with synchronous malignant adenoma transformation in the sigmoid colon (Tis stage, 8 × 4 cm) and eminence-type adenocarcinoma with mucinous adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon (T3 stage, 4 × 4 cm), complicated by intussusception. (a, b) Axial and coronal contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) images showing slightly lower density mass involving the transverse colon in intussusception. (c) Axial contrast-enhanced CT image showing a mass with homogeneous and obvious enhancement involving the sigmoid colon, causing luminal stenosis. (d) Colonoscopy image showing a mass in the sigmoid colon; however, the colonoscope was unable to pass through the mass, resulting in a missed diagnosis in the transverse colon.

Figure 3.

A 79-year-old woman with synchronous ulcer-type adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon (Tis stage, 6 × 8 cm) and eminence-type adenocarcinoma in the rectum (Tis stage, 1 × 1.5 cm). However, the adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon was diagnosed 5 months after diagnosis of the rectum adenocarcinoma by computed tomography (CT) and colonoscopy. (a) Axial contrast-enhanced CT image showing a mass with homogeneous enhancement involving the rectum, resulting in luminal stenosis. (b) Axial contrast-enhanced CT image showing a suspiciously thickened colon wall (white arrow) in the transverse colon disturbed by colorectal contraction and a high amount of colonic content. (c) Colonoscopy revealed a mass in the rectum; however, the colonoscope was unable to pass through the mass, resulting in a missed diagnosis in the transverse colon.

Of the 46 colorectal cancers, 35 were adenocarcinomas (Figures 2 and 3) (5 protruded-type adenocarcinoma with mucinous adenocarcinomas, 17 ulcer-type adenocarcinomas, 12 protruded-type adenocarcinomas, and 1 ulcer-type mucinous adenocarcinoma), and 11 patients had malignant adenoma transformations (Figure 2). Of the 46 colorectal cancers, 14 patients were Tis stage, 1 was T1 stage, 13 were T2 stage, 16 were T3 stage, and 2 patients were T4 stage.

Of the 46 SCC tumors, MSCT missed the diagnosis in 4 cases (8.7%), including 1 ascending colon cancer, 1 transverse colon cancer, and 2 sigmoid colon cancers. Colonoscopy missed the diagnosis in nine cases (19.6%), including eight proximal cancers (2 ascending colon cancers, 2 hepatic flexure cancers, 1 transverse colon cancer, and 3 sigmoid colon cancers) (Figure 2 and 3) and one distal carcinoma (sigmoid colon cancer).

MSCT and colonoscopy exhibited diagnostic accuracies of 91.3% and 80.4%, respectively, according to McNemar’s test, but the difference in diagnostic accuracy was not significant (Table 1). The combination of MSCT and colonoscopy had a diagnostic accuracy of 93.5%, which was significantly higher than that of colonoscopy alone (P = 0.031; Table 2), but not significantly different from that of MSCT alone (Table 3).

Table 1.

Diagnostic accuracies of multi-slice spiral computerized tomography versus colonoscopy.

MSCT	Colonoscopy		McNemar’s test	Total
MSCT	+	−	McNemar’s test	Total
+	36	6	_	42
−	1	3		4
Total	37	9		46

+, diagnosis; −, missed diagnosis; MSCT, multi-slice spiral computerized tomography.

Table 2.

Diagnostic accuracies of colonoscopy with and without multi-slice spiral computerized tomography.

Colonoscopy	MSCT+colonoscopy		McNemar’s test	Total
Colonoscopy	+	−	McNemar’s test	Total
+	37	0	_	37
−	6	3		9
Total	43	3		46

+, diagnosis; −, missed diagnosis; MSCT, multi-slice spiral computerized tomography.

Table 3.

Diagnostic accuracies of multi-slice spiral computerized tomography with and without colonoscopy.

MSCT	MSCT + colonoscopy		McNemar’s test	Total
MSCT	+	−	McNemar’s test	Total
+	42	0	_	42
−	1	3		4
Total	43	3		46

+, diagnosis; −, missed diagnosis; MSCT, multi-slice spiral computerized tomography.

There was a significant difference (corrected χ² = 4.675, P = 0.031) in missed diagnosis rates between proximal (34.8%) and distal cancers (4.3%) for colonoscopy (Table 4). There was also a significant difference in missed diagnosis rates between smaller tumors (median long diameter 1.25 cm (0.80, 1.50)) and larger tumors (median long diameter 4.00 cm (3.00, 6.00)) for MSCT (Z = −3.235, P = 0.001) (Table 5). However, there were no significant differences in missed diagnosis rates of tumors in relation to T stage or pathological type for MSCT or colonoscopy (Table 6).

Table 4.

Missed diagnoses of distal versus proximal cancers of the colon by colonoscopy (corrected χ² test).

Tumor location	Number of missed diagnoses	Number	Miss rate%	χ²	P-value
Distal	1	23	4.3	4.675	0.031
Proximal	8	23	34.8	4.675	0.031

Table 5.

Diagnosis in relation to size of colon tumor size by multi-slice spiral computerized tomography (rank sum test).

Variable	Diagnosis (n = 42)	Missed diagnosis (n = 4)	Z	P-value
Tumor size, M (Q1, Q3)	4.00 cm (3.00, 6.00)	1.25 cm (0.80, 1.50)	−3.235	0.001

Table 6.

Impacts of tumor T stage and pathological type on missed diagnosis by multi-slice spiral computerized tomography and colonoscopy (corrected χ² test).

T stage	Miss number	Number	Miss rate%	χ²	P-value
MSCT				4.444	0.108
Tis + T1	3	15	20.0
T2	0	13	0.00
T3 + T4	1	18	5.56
Colonoscopy				1.959	0.375
Tis + T1	4	15	26.7
T2	1	13	7.7
T3 + T4	4	18	22.2
MSCT				3.585	0.058
Adenocarcinomas	1	35	2.9
Malignant adenoma transformation	3	11	27.3
Colonoscopy				1.489	0.222
Adenocarcinoma	5	35	14.3
Malignant adenoma transformation	4	11	36.4

MSCT, multi-slice spiral computerized tomography.

Missed diagnoses on MSCT resulted from the round or oval shape and the small volume of the tumors (Figure 3) and technical factors (excessive intestinal content and colon contraction) (Table 6), and missed diagnoses for colonoscopy were caused by poor bowel preparation (Figures 2 and 3) and failure of the colonoscope to pass through the stricture caused by the tumor (Table 7) (Figure 2).

Table 7.

Missed diagnoses by multi-slice spiral computerized tomography and colonoscopy.

MSCT			Colonoscopy
Missed cause	Number	%	Missed cause	Number	%
Round or oval	2	50.0	Poor bowel preparation	3	37.5
Small volume	2	50.0	Colonic stenosis	4	50
Colonic contraction	3	75.0	Other	2	25
Intestinal contents	1	25.0

MSCT, multi-slice spiral computerized tomography.

Discussion

This study showed that combining MSCT and colonoscopy could effectively reduce the rate of missed diagnoses of SCC. Colonoscopy mainly missed the diagnosis of tumors in the proximal colon. The missed diagnosis rate of SCC for MSCT in relation to tumor size was low. Missed diagnoses on MSCT were mainly caused by the round or oval shape and small volume of the tumors and by technical factors (excessive intestinal content and colon contraction), while missed diagnoses for colonoscopy were due to poor bowel preparation and failure of the colonoscope to pass through the stricture caused by the tumor.

Our analysis suggested that advanced age, smoking history, alcohol consumption, and male sex were risk factors for SCC, consistent with previous findings.^4,20

Preoperative MSCT is crucial for precise localization of the lesion during SCC diagnosis. Laparoscopic surgery has been widely used to treat colorectal cancer^21
–23; however, palpation and colonoscopy may fail to accurately locate the tumor,²⁴ especially in the descending colon, due to colonic stenosis and SCC localization in different segments.^1,6 MSCT may aid preoperative planning and precise positioning in these cases.

The current data showed that the combination of MSCT and colonoscopy was superior to colonoscopy alone for diagnosing SCC. Although colonoscopy is highly efficient for diagnosing colon cancer, it has some limitations^1,14 due to colonic elongation, colonic tortuosity, advanced diverticular disease, poor bowel preparation, colonic obstruction, and colonic stenosis, which may contribute to a missed diagnosis.^17,18 In contrast, MSCT has multiple advantages for colon cancer diagnosis, including noninvasiveness, safety, and high cost-effectiveness.^25
–30 However, technical factors associated with CT examination (excessive intestinal content and colon contraction), a round or oval shape and small tumor volume, pathological factors (colon mucinous adenocarcinoma and malignant adenoma transformations), and intussusception, may all lead to a missed diagnosis.³¹ Michele et al.⁶ compared the accuracies of colonoscopy and CT (for visible lesions) in localizing colonic lesions (single tumors) in a prospective multicenter study, and demonstrated no significant difference between the two preoperative tools (510/661 vs. 499/661 correctly localized lesions). The current analysis did not establish which method was more advantageous for diagnosing SCC when used alone, possibly due to the small sample size. Although both methods resulted in missed diagnoses, the combination of MSCT and colonoscopy could effectively reduce the missed diagnosis rate.

Most colonoscopy-associated missed diagnoses involved proximal cancers, possibly because of failure of the colonoscopy in terms of cecal intubation or obstruction due to poor bowel preparation and colonic stenosis. However, the whole colon can be observed by conventional MSCT.

Our data show that missed diagnoses by MSCT mainly resulted from technical factors (excessive intestinal content and colon contraction) and the round or oval shape and small volume of the tumors, which affect tumor visibility. Small colorectal tumors cannot be seen clearly on CT images, leading to missed diagnosis by MSCT.³¹

Our analysis showed that MSCT-assisted diagnosis was unaffected by T stage and pathological type; however, this result may have been due to our small sample size. MSCT has previously shown good value for the diagnosis and T staging of digestive tract tumors.³² In addition, T stage and pathological type do not result in misdiagnosis by colonoscopy, given that colonoscopy can observe all tumors as long as there are no factors affecting observation,^17,18 such as colonic elongation, tortuosity, advanced diverticular disease, poor bowel preparation, colonic obstruction, or colonic stenosis.

SCC is a rare entity and this study was therefore limited by its small sample size. However, we will continue to collect data and expand the study. In addition, this was a single-center, retrospective study.

In conclusion, the current study showed that MSCT could improve the diagnostic accuracy of SCC when combined with colonoscopy. We recommend that abdominal CT be routinely performed in patients with SCC because colonoscopy may fail to observe the whole colon.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

ORCID iD

Bin Yang

References

Mulder

Kranse

Damhuis

, et al. Prevalence and prognosis of synchronous colorectal cancer: a Dutch population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol 2011; 35: 442–447.

Van Leersum

Aalbers

Snijdes

, et al. Synchronous colorectal carcinoma: a risk factor in colorectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2014; 57: 460–466.

Devita

Jr Hellman

Roseberg

SA.

Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. 7th ed. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2005, pp.124–125.

Latournerie

Jooste

Cottet

, et al. Epidemiology and prognosis of synchronous colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2008; 95: 1528–1533.

Kim

Pickhardt

Taylor

, et al. CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 1403–1412.

Manigrasso

Milone

Musella

, et al. Preoperative Localization in Colonic Surgery (PLoCoS Study): a multicentric experience on behalf of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR). Updates Surg 2021. doi: 10.1007/s13304-021-01180-7

Gao

Wang

, et al. Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance and computed tomography colonography for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97: e10883.

Hoshino

Sakamoto

Hida

, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography colonography for tumor depth in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 2019; 30: 126–130.

Sato

Tanaka

Sato

, et al. Usefulness of preoperative CT colonography for colon cancer. Asian J Surg 2017; 40: 438–443.

10.

Hiroishi

Yamada

Morimoto

, et al. Three-dimensional computed tomographic angiography with computed tomographic colonography for laparoscopic colorectal Surgery. Jpn J Radiol 2018; 36: 698–705.

11.

Gupta

Kupfer

Davis

AM.

Colorectal cancer screening.

JAMA 2019; 321: 2022–2023.

12.

Simon

Colorectal cancer development and advances in screening.

Clin Interv Aging 2016; 11: 967–976.

13.

Vogl

Schmiegel

Pox

, et al. S3 Guideline-diagnosis and treatment of colorectal carcinoma: relevance for radiologic imaging and interventions. Rofo 2013; 185: 699–708.

14.

Flor

Zanchetta

Leo

, et al. Synchronous colorectal cancer using CT colonography vs. other means: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol 2018; 43: 3241–3249.

15.

Lam

Chan

Leung

Synchronous colorectal cancer: clinical, pathological and molecular implications.

World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 6815–6820.

16.

Glor

Ceretti

Luigiano

, et al. Performance of CT colonography in diagnosis of synchronous colonic lesions in patients with occlusive colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 214: 348–354.

17.

Hanson

Pickhardt

Kim

, et al. Anatomic factors predictive of incomplete colonoscopy based on findings at colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 774–779.

18.

Morini

Zullo

Hassan

, et al. Endoscopic management of failed colonoscopy in clinical practice: to change endoscopist, instrument, or both? Int J Colorectal Dis 2011; 26: 103–108.

19.

Von Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 573–577.

20.

Hashibe

Brennan

Benhamou

, et al. Alcohol drinking in never users of tobacco, cigarette smoking in never drinkers, and the risk of head and neck cancer: pooled analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 777–789.

21.

Bonjer

Deijen

Abis

, et al. A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1324–1332.

22.

Serrano

Parpia

Karanicolas

, et al. Simultaneous resection for synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases: A feasibility clinical trial. J Surg Oncol 2021: 1–7. doi: 10.1002/jso.26764.

23.

Sena

Picciariello

Marino

, et al. One-stage total laparoscopic treatment for colorectal cancer with synchronous metastasis. Is it safe and feasible? Front Surg 2021; 8: 752135.

24.

Cho

Lee

Yun

, et al. Tumor localization for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. World J Surg 2007; 31: 1491–1495.

25.

Pickhardt

Yee

Johnson

, et al. CT colonography: over two decades from discovery to practice. Abdom Radiol 2018; 43: 517–522.

26.

Obaro

Burling

Plumb

AA.

Colon cancer screening with CT colonography: logistics, cost-effectiveness, efficiency and progress.

Br J Radiol 2018; 91: 20180307.

27.

Ojidu

Palmer

Lewandowski

, et al. Patient tolerance and acceptance of different colonic imaging modalities: an observational cohort study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 30: 520–525.

28.

Smith

Weiss

Potvien

, et al. Insurance coverage for CT colonography screening: impact on overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Radiology 2017; 284: 717–724.

29.

Mang

Kolorektales Karzinom: Rolle bildgebender Verfahren in der Vorsorge [Colorectal cancer: role of imaging in screening]. Radiologie 2019; 59: 23–34. In German. doi: 10.1007/s00117-018-0479-0

30.

Sali

Ventura

Grazzini

, et al. Patients experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial. Eur Radiol 2019; 29: 2457–2464.

31.

Yang

Liu

, et al . Cause analysis of missed diagnosis of synchronous colorectal carcinoma on MSCT. Radiologic Practice 2021; 36: 88–93. doi: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2021.01.017

32.

Pang

Liu

Peng

, et al. Prediction of synchronous colorectal cancers by computed tomography in subjects receiving an incomplete colonoscopy: A single-center study. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 1857–1864.

Value of multi-slice spiral computerized tomography for diagnosis of synchronous colorectal carcinoma: a retrospective study

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study population

MSCT scanning device

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

Funding

ORCID iD

References