RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a non-invasive screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC) with high sensitivity and low risk of complications. We used a nationally representative sample of screening-eligible adults to examine trends in and factors associated with CTC use. METHODS: We examined CTC use among 58,058 adults in the National Health Interview Survey in 2010, 2015, 2018, 2019, and 2021. For each survey year, we estimated CTC use by sociodemographic and health factors. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with CTC use. RESULTS: A total of 1.7 % adults reported receiving CTC across all survey years. CTC use was similar in 2010 (1.3 %), 2015 (0.8 %), 2018 (1.4 %), and 2019 (1.4 %) but increased in 2021 (3.5 %, p < 0.05). In multivariable analysis, survey year 2021 [vs. 2010, odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.83-3.43], Hispanic (OR 1.73, 95 % CI 1.34-2.23), non-Hispanic Black (OR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.67-2.57), and household income <200 % federal poverty level (vs. >400 %, OR 1.25, 95 % CI 1.01-1.57) was associated with CTC use. Further, adults with a history of diabetes (OR 1.20, 95 % CI 1.01-1.45), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 1.58, 95 % CI 1.25-1.99), cancer (OR 1.29, 95 % CI 1.05-1.58), or past-year hospital admissions (OR 1.44, 95 % CI 1.18-1.78) were more likely to receive CTC. CONCLUSION: CTC use remained low from 2010 to 2019 but increased in 2021. CTC use was more frequent among adults with chronic health conditions, minorities, and adults with lower income, and may help reduce disparities in CRC screening.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of colonoscopy (CS) and CT colonography (CTC) in the measurement of colorectal polyps using pathological size as a reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis included 61 colorectal polyps in 28 patients who underwent preoperative CTC at our institution. All polyps were endoscopically resected. Polyp sizes were measured by CS and CTC. Endoscopic polyp size was extracted from endoscopy records written by one of two endoscopists (A with 11 and B with 6 years of endoscopic experience, respectively), who estimated the size visually/categorically without any measuring devices. After matching the location, the polyp size was measured on CTC using manual three-dimensional (3D) measurement on a workstation. The sizes of resected polyps were also measured after pathological inspection. Differences of the polyp size between CTC and histology, and between CS and histology were compared using paired t tests. Differences in measurement between the two endoscopists were also analyzed. RESULTS: The mean diameters of polyps measured using CS, CTC, and pathology were 10.5 mm, 9.2 mm, and 8.4 mm, respectively. There was a significant correlation between CS and pathology, as well as between CTC and pathology (both P < 0.0001). The correlation coefficient for CS (r = 0.86) was lower than that for CTC (r = 0.96). The correlations between CS and pathology for endoscopists A and B were 0.90 and 0.89, respectively. CONCLUSION: Measurements of polyp size using CTC were closer to the pathological measurements compared to those by CS, which exhibited greater variability. This suggests that CTC may be more suitable for polyp size measurements in the clinical setting if patients undergo CTC concurrently with colonoscopy.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Since 2003, a decline in the age-standardized incidence rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been observed in Germany. Nonetheless, one in eight cancer cases still affects the colon or rectum. The prognosis has improved, with the relative 5­year survival rate for CRC being approximately 65%. METHODS: This positive trend is probably a result of preventive measures introduced over the last 20 years. This could be further improved, however, as CRC can not only be detected early but in almost all cases also prevented through the identification of benign precursors. Less than half of all eligible individuals participate in screening via colonoscopy. This implies that further, possibly even imaging, screening test methods should be explored and offered. Studies have reported that virtual colonography techniques have a comparable accuracy to endoscopy of about 90% for polyp sizes larger than 5 mm. The data for computed tomography (CT) is more extensive than for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). CONCLUSION: Significant challenges are posed however by the fact that in Germany CT colonography (CTC) is not considered a viable screening option due to radiation protection concerns, and MRI screening is not an established screening method. Radiologists should be familiar with classification using the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS), which uses criteria such as CT density, morphology, size, and location for classification. C­RADS classification follows the categories: C0 (inadequate study), C1 (normal), C2a (indeterminate), C2b (benign), C3 (suspicious), and C4 (malignant), as well as extracolonic categories E1/2 (no clinically significant findings), E3 (likely insignificant findings), and E4 (likely significant findings).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objectives: To investigate patient acceptance and preference for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) over colonoscopy. Methods: Participants were recruited from a nationwide multicenter trial in Japan to assess the accuracy of CTC detection. They were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy after CTC with common bowel preparation on the same day. Some were administered sedative drugs during colonoscopy, depending on the referring clinician and participant's preferences. The participants were requested to complete a questionnaire to evaluate the acceptability of bowel preparation, examinations, and preference for future examinations. Results: Of the 1,257 enrolled participants, 1,180 (mean age: 60.6 years; women: 43.3%) completed the questionnaire. Sedative drugs were not administered in 687 participants (unsedated colonoscopy group) and were administered intravenously during colonoscopy in 493 participants (sedated colonoscopy group). Before propensity score matching, the mean participants' age, percentages of asymptomatic participants, insufflation of gas during colonoscopy, and number of participants with a history of abdominal/pelvic operation significantly differed between the groups. After propensity score matching, 912 participants from each group were included in the analysis. In the unsedated colonoscopy group, CTC was answered as significantly easier than colonoscopy (p<0.001). Conversely, CTC was significantly more difficult than colonoscopy in the sedated colonoscopy group (p<0.001). In the unsedated colonoscopy group, 48% preferred CTC and 22% preferred colonoscopy for future examinations, whereas in the sedated colonoscopy group, 26% preferred CTC and 38% preferred colonoscopy (p<0.001). Conclusions: CTC has superior participant acceptability compared with unsedated colonoscopy. However, our study did not observe the advantages of CTC acceptance over sedative colonoscopy.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate bowel preparation burden, rectal pain and abdominal discomfort levels and to determine the association between demographic characteristics and those levels among participants undergoing CT colonography and colonoscopy. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in eligible Thai citizens who consented to participate all four visits of a free colorectal cancer screening protocol. Three levels (mild, moderate and severe) of burden, pain and discomfort were used to ask the perspective of participants at the final visit, one week after undergoing those two procedures. RESULTS: Data from 1,271 participants completed for analyses - females 815 (64.1%), males 456 (35.9%). The majority of participants experienced mild burden, pain and discomfort. Association between characteristic groups and burden levels differed regarding own income, chronic disease and laxative. Between characteristic groups and pain and discomfort levels differed regarding own income and chronic disease. Participants without their own income rated severe burden lower than those who had (p<0.001), but those without chronic disease rated moderate burden lower than who had (p=0.003). Participants prepared bowel with spilt-dose of PEG rated moderate burden higher than those who prepared with NaP (p<0.001). Participants undergoing CT colonography without their own income and presenting no chronic disease faced severe rectal pain lower than those who had (p<0.001 and p=0.04). Participants without their own income rated moderate and severe abdominal discomfort lower than those who had (p<0.01 and p=0.008). Participants undergoing colonoscopy without their own income and no chronic diseases faced severe rectal pain lower than those who had (p<0.001 and p=0.007). Participants without their own income and no chronic disease rated severe abdominal discomfort lower than those who had (p<0.001 and p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Evaluating the perspectives of customers alongside quality improvement and innovation to reduce unpleasant experiences remains needed in CT colonography and colonoscopy to promote CRC screening.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND. Approximately one-third of the eligible U.S. population have not undergone guideline-compliant colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Guidelines recognize various screening strategies to increase adherence. CMS provides coverage for all recommended screening tests except CT colonography (CTC). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CTC and other CRC screening tests in terms of associations of utilization with income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. METHODS. This retrospective study used CMS Research Identifiable Files from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020. These files contain claims information for 5% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Data were extracted for individuals 45-85 years old, and individuals with high CRC risk were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine the likelihood of undergoing CRC screening tests (as well as of undergoing diagnostic CTC, a CMS-covered test with similar physical access as screening CTC) as a function of income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity while controlling for sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, U.S. census region, screening year, and related conditions and procedures. RESULTS. For 12,273,363 beneficiary years (mean age, 70.5 ± 8.2 [SD] years; 2,436,849 unique beneficiaries: 6,774,837 female beneficiaries, 5,498,526 male beneficiaries), there were 785,103 CRC screenings events, including 645 for screening CTC. Compared with individuals living in communities with per capita income of less than US$25,000, individuals in communities with income of US$100,000 or more had OR for undergoing screening CTC of 5.73, optical colonoscopy (OC) of 1.36, sigmoidoscopy of 1.03, guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test of 1.50, stool DNA of 1.43, and diagnostic CTC of 2.00. The OR for undergoing screening CTC was 1.00 for Hispanic individuals and 1.08 for non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Compared with the OR for undergoing screening CTC for residents of metropolitan areas, the OR was 0.51 for residents of micropolitan areas and 0.65 for residents of small or rural areas. CONCLUSION. The association with income was substantially larger for screening CTC than for other CRC screening tests or for diagnostic CTC. CLINICAL IMPACT. Medicare's noncoverage for screening CTC may contribute to lower adherence with CRC screening guidelines for lower-income beneficiaries. Medicare coverage of CTC could reduce income-based disparities for individuals avoiding OC owing to invasiveness, need for anesthesia, or complication risk.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of white light colon capsule endoscopy's current clinical application, concentrating on its most recent developments. Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE2) is approved by the FDA for use as an adjunctive test in patients with incomplete colonoscopy and within Europe in patients at average risk, those with incomplete colonoscopies or those unwilling to undergo conventional colonoscopies. Since the publication of European Society of GI Endoscopy guidelines on the use of CCE, there has been a significant increase in comparative studies on the diagnostic yield of CCE. This paper discusses CCE2 in further detail. It explains newly developed colon capsule system and the current status on the use of CCE, it also provides a comprehensive summary of systematic reviews on the implementation of CCE in colorectal cancer screening from a methodological perspective. Patients with ulcerative colitis can benefit from CCE2 in terms of assessing mucosal inflammation. As part of this review, performance of CCE2 for assessing disease severity in ulcerative colitis is compared with colonoscopy. Finally, an assessment if CCE can become a cost-effective clinical service overall.

RESUMEN

(1) Although new imaging methods for examining the GIT with high diagnostic capabilities were introduced, the improvement and implementation of safe, efficient, and cost-effective approaches continue, and GIT diseases are still challenging to diagnose; (2) Methods: We aim to show the possibilities of computed tomography (CT) colonography for early diagnosis of colon diseases using a multidetector 32-channel CT scanner after appropriate preparation; (3) Results: After a colonoscopy was performed earlier, 140 patients were examined with CT colonography. Complete colonoscopy was performed in 80 patients (57.1%) out of 140 who underwent CT colonography. Incomplete colonoscopy was observed in 52 patients (37.2%); in 5 patients (3.6%), it was contraindicated, and in 3 patients (2.1%), it was not performed because of patients' refusal. We determined that in cases of complete FCS in 95% of patients, CT colonography established the same clinical diagnosis as FCS. In cases of incomplete, refused, or contraindicated FCS in 32.7% (17 patients), FCS failed to diagnose correctly. The main reasons for incomplete colonoscopy were: intraluminal obturation of tumor nature-17 patients (33%), extraluminal obturation (compression) from a tumor formation-4 patients (8%), stenotic changes of non-tumor nature-11 patients (21%), congenital diseases with changes in the length of the lumen of the intestinal loops-7 patients (13%), and subjective factors (pain, poor preparation, contraindications) in 13 patients (25%); (4) Conclusions: Our results confirmed that CT colonography is a method of choice in cases of negative FCS results accompanied by clinical data for the neoplastic process and in cases of incomplete and contraindicated FCS. Also, the insufflation system we developed optimizes the method by improving the quality of the obtained images and ensuring good patient tolerance.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To compare MiraLAX, a hypo-osmotic lavage, and magnesium citrate (MgC), a hyper-osmotic agent for bowel preparation at CTC. METHODS: 398 total screening CTC studies were included in this retrospective, single institution study. 297 underwent preparation with a double-dose MgC regimen (mean age, 61 ± 5.5 years; 142 male/155 female) and 101 with 8.3 oz (equivalent to 238 g PEG) of MiraLAX (mean age, 60 ± 9.6 years; 45 male/56 female). Oral contrast for tagging purposes was utilized in both regimens. Studies were retrospectively analyzed for residual fluid volume and attenuation by automated analysis, as well for subjective oral contrast coating of the normal colonic wall and polyps. 50 patients underwent successive CTC studies utilizing each agent (mean, 6.1 ± 1.7 years apart), allowing for intra-patient comparison. Chi-squared, Fisher's exact, McNemar, and t-tests were used for data comparison. RESULTS: Residual fluid volume (as percentage of total colonic volume) and fluid density was 7.2 ± 4.2% and 713 ± 183 HU for the MgC cohort and 8.7 ± 3.8% and 1044 HU ± 274 for the MiraLAX cohort, respectively (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Similar results were observed for the intra-patient cohort. Colonic wall coating negatively influencing interpretation was noted in 1.7% of MgC vs. 6.9% of MiraLAX examinations (p = 0.008). Polyps were detected in 12% of all MgC vs. 16% of all MiraLAX CTCs (p = 0.29). CONCLUSION: CTC bowel preparation with the hypo-osmotic MiraLAX agent appears to provide acceptable diagnostic quality that is comparable to the hyper-osmotic MgC agent, especially when factoring in patient safety and tolerance.

RESUMEN

Radiologic imaging, especially MRI, has long been the mainstay for rectal cancer staging and patient selection for neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgical resection. In contrast, colonoscopy and CT have been the standard for colon cancer diagnosis and metastasis staging with T and N staging often performed at the time of surgical resection. With recent clinical trials exploring the expansion of the use of neoadjuvant therapy beyond the anorectum to the remainder of the colon, the current and future state of colon cancer treatment is evolving with a renewed interest in evaluating the role radiology may play in the primary T staging of colon cancer. The performance of CT, CT colonography, MRI, and FDG PET-CT for colon cancer staging will be reviewed. N staging will also be briefly discussed. It is expected that accurate radiologic T staging will significantly impact future clinical decisions regarding the neoadjuvant versus surgical management of colon cancer.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand the public perception of CT colonography (CTC) in comparison with optical colonoscopy as a colorectal cancer screening technique. METHODS: In this observational study, all English-language tweets from January 1, 2015, until September 1, 2021, containing terms related to CTC and terms related to optical colonoscopy were collected. The tweets were given sentiment scores using Twitter-roBERTa-base, a natural language processing model. These scores were then used to classify tweets into positive, neutral, and negative categories. The numbers of negative, positive, and neutral tweets were tabulated. RESULTS: A total of 4,709 tweets from 2,194 users relating to CTC were collected. Of these tweets, 9.81% were negative, 68.52% were neutral, and 21.63% were positive. In comparison, a total of 445,969 tweets from 261,209 users were collected relating to optical colonoscopy. Of these tweets, 31.8% were negative, 51.3% were neutral, and 16.9% were positive. CONCLUSIONS: The public awareness of CTC remains limited in comparison with optical colonoscopy, with Twitter volume relating to CTC being about 1% the volume for optical colonoscopy. There was a higher proportion of negative tweets regarding colonoscopy. The lower proportion of negative tweets regarding CTC may be helpful in encouraging its use as an alternative to optical colonoscopy, with the aim of increasing uptake of colorectal cancer screening.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of a luminal colonic disease is of essential clinical importance to start timely optimised therapy and detect complications early. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to provide an overview of the use of radiological methods in diagnosing neoplastic and inflammatory luminal diseases of the colon. Characteristic morphological features are discussed and compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on an extensive literature review, the current state of knowledge regarding the imaging diagnosis of luminal pathologies of the colon and their importance in patient management is presented. RESULTS: Technological advances in imaging have made the diagnosis of neoplastic and inflammatory colonic diseases using abdominal computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging the established standard. Imaging is performed as part of the initial diagnosis in clinically symptomatic patients, to exclude complications, as a follow-up assessment under therapy and as an optional screening method in asymptomatic individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate knowledge of the radiological manifestations of the numerous luminal disease patterns, the typical distribution pattern and characteristic bowel wall changes are essential to improve diagnostic decision-making.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: 15-20% of patients present with near obstructing left-sided colorectal cancer. CT colonography (CTC) or PET-CT has been used to detect synchronous lesions, which may alter preoperative planning of colonic resection. We aim to synthesize the usefulness of CT colonography and/or PET-CT in detecting synchronous proximal colon carcinomas in patients who have undergone an incomplete colonoscopy due to a stenosing or obstructing distal colorectal cancer. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was performed by searching the databases up to December 2021. Data collected included demographics of the study population, rate of detection of synchronous carcinomas and impact on management of detection of synchronous carcinomas. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included: 17 studies focused on CTC, 3 on PET-CT, and 2 integrated PET-CT with CTC; 2855 patients were included; 53% of patients were male, and 47% were female. All studies reported detection of synchronous proximal colorectal carcinomas using CTC, PET-CT or CTC, and PET-CT combined. CTC detected synchronous carcinomas in 0.2-12.2% of patients. PET-CT was useful in detecting synchronous carcinomas in 4.05-23% of patients. Integrated PET-CT and CTC detected synchronous carcinomas in 2-15% of patients. The surgical plan was changed in 2.4-14.3% of patients after the use of CTC. One PET-CT study reported a change in management in 13.5%. No complication was reported by the use of CTC. CONCLUSION: CTC is an effective and useful adjunct to colonoscopy in assessing the proximal colon when colonoscopy fails to do so. However, more evidence is needed with the use of PET-CT for this patient population.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was introduced in our department on two indications; following incomplete colonoscopy as an alternative to CT colonography, and in patients with a history of incomplete colonoscopy as an alternative to anesthesia-assisted (AA) colonoscopy. We aimed to compare the quality of CCE, defined by completion rate and polyp detection rate (PDR), with that of CT colonography and AA colonoscopy, respectively. METHODS: Patients referred for CCE from May 2020 until November 2021 were consecutively included in this prospective cohort study. Demographics, indication and CCE outcomes were registered from the electronic patient record. Completion rate and PDR in CCE as an alternative to CT colonography were compared with those of a historical cohort undergoing CT colonography following incomplete colonoscopy. Completion rate and PDR in CCE as an alternative to AA colonoscopy were compared with those of a time true parallel cohort undergoing AA colonoscopy. RESULTS: In 65 patients undergoing CCE, 36 (57%) were referred as an alternative to CT colonography. The completion rate in this group was 44% compared to 96% in CT colonography (p < 0.001). The PDR in complete CCE in this group was 75% in CCE compared to 20% in CT colonography (p < 0.001). The remaining 27 (43%) of the sample were referred for CCE as an alternative to AA colonoscopy. The completion rate in this group was 33% compared to 100% in AA colonoscopy (p < 0.001). The PDR in complete CCE in this group was 78% in CCE compared to 35% in AA colonoscopy (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: The completion rate of CCE following incomplete colonoscopy is inferior to that of CT colonography and AA colonoscopy. The PDR of CCE was high, indicating an acceptable sensitivity in complete investigations, but in our settings the completion rate of CCE on this indication is unacceptably low. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04307901 (ClinicalTrials.gov, March 13, 2020).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Annual screening of lung cancer (LC) with chest low-dose computed tomography (CT) and screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) with CT colonography every 5 years are recommended by the United States Prevention Service Task Force. We review epidemiological and pathological data on LC and CRC, and the features of screening chest low-dose CT and CT colonography comprising execution, reading, radiation exposure and harm, and the cost effectiveness of the two CT screening interventions. The possibility of combining chest low-dose CT and CT colonography examinations for double LC and CRC screening in a single CT appointment is then addressed. We demonstrate how this approach appears feasible and is already reasonable as an opportunistic screening intervention in 50-75-year-old subjects with smoking history and average CRC risk. In addition to the crucial role Computer Assisted Diagnosis systems play in decreasing the test reading times and the need to educate radiologists in screening chest LDCT and CT colonography, in view of a single CT appointment for double screening, the following uncertainties need to be solved: (1) the schedule of the screening CT; (2) the effectiveness of iterative reconstruction and deep learning algorithms affording an ultra-low-dose CT acquisition technique and (3) management of incidental findings. Resolving these issues will imply new cost-effectiveness analyses for LC screening with chest low dose CT and for CRC screening with CT colonography and, especially, for the double LC and CRC screening with a single-appointment CT.

RESUMEN

Aims: Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is seen as a more tolerable alternative to colonoscopy, but patients struggle with the steps required for optimal diagnostic imaging. This prospective study aims to understand the experience of patients undergoing CTC. Methods: A survey was completed by a convenience sample of patients before and after CTC over 7 months. The 13-item questionnaire covered pre-test information, overall and specific experience of the test. The responses were tabulated and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative free-text responses were coded for content and thematic analysis. Results: At a response rate of 51%, surveys were received from 41 patients. Overall, most patients (54%) found the investigation better than expected. However, 18% stated they were not informed of potential side effects. Side effects were experienced by 49% of patients, including diarrhea (34%) and abdominal pain (24%). About 59% experienced discomfort with gas insufflation, and 86% found turning during the investigation difficult. Conclusion: A significant proportion of patients undergoing CTC experience side effects and difficulties completing the investigation. Patient information is important to improve patient experience of CTC.

RESUMEN

Colorectal carcinoma is the third most malignant and second leading cause of death from cancer. The cruelty of this entity is that it takes decades to be symptomatic and is known to be detected late in its timeline by a screening technique. The fatality of this carcinoma only means heightened importance of screening guidelines to be laid down and strict follow-ups by the healthcare providers. A novel method, a potential competitor that could now replace the present screening techniques for colorectal carcinoma, is computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or virtual colonoscopy. Though it first came into existence in 1994, this method is yet to be deeply studied and scrutinized for it to be the next benchmark modality. This review has mainly focused on the various features of CTC. It is contrasted against the gold standard colonoscopy for its superiority, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, patient logistics, and role in detecting extra-colonic lesions. The main focus would be laid on CTC being a screening modality. The review also emphasized why there is a need for the current healthcare providers to incorporate this modality into their practice widely. Although much has been said about CTC and its various aspects of cost-effectiveness, about it being replaced or supplemented for cancer screening, a collaborative effort has to be made by both the fields of radiology and gastroenterology to investigate the outcomes of this not so new technique in daily practice and to avoid misinterpretation of the results due to lack of skill and proficiency.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To compare examination quality and acceptability of three different low-volume bowel preparation regimens differing in scheduling of the oral administration of a Macrogol-based solution, in patients undergoing computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The secondary aim was to compare CTC quality according to anatomical and patient variables (dolichocolon, colonic diverticulosis, functional and secondary constipation). METHODS: One-hundred-eighty patients were randomized into one of three regimens where PEG was administered, respectively: in a single dose the day prior to (A), or in a fractionated dose 2 (B) and 3 days (C) before the examination. Two experienced radiologists evaluated fecal tagging (FT) density and homogeneity both qualitatively and quantitatively by assessing mean segment density (MSD) and relative standard deviation (RSD). Tolerance to the regimens and patient variables were also recorded. RESULTS: Compared to B and C, regimen A showed a lower percentage of segments with inadequate FT and a significantly higher median FT density and/or homogeneity scores as well as significantly higher MSD values in some colonic segments. No statistically significant differences were found in tolerance of the preparations. A higher number of inadequate segments were observed in patients with dolichocolon (p < 0.01) and secondary constipation (p < 0.01). Interobserver agreement was high for the assessment of both FT density (k = 0.887) and homogeneity (k = 0.852). CONCLUSION: The best examination quality was obtained when PEG was administered the day before CTC in a single session. The presence of dolichocolon and secondary constipation represent a risk factor for the presence of inadequately tagged colonic segments.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: CT colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive screening test with high sensitivity for colonic polyps (>1 cm). Prior studies suggest that CTC utilization remains low. However, there are few studies evaluating recent CTC utilization and predictors of CTC utilization. Our purpose was to estimate recent nationwide CTC utilization and evaluate predictors of CTC utilization using 2019 nationally representative cross-sectional survey data. METHODS: Participants between ages 50 and 75 without colorectal cancer history in the 2019 National Health Interview Survey cross-sectional data were included. The proportion of participants reporting utilization of CTC was estimated, accounting for complex survey design elements. Multiple variable logistic regression analyses evaluated predictors of CTC utilization. Analyses were conducted accounting for complex survey design elements to obtain valid estimates for the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population. RESULTS: In all, 13,709 respondents were included, and 1.4% reported undergoing CTC, of whom 39.9% underwent CTC within the last year, 18.5% within the last 2 years, 13.0% within the last 3 years, 7.8% within the last 5 years, 11.2% within the last 10 years, and 9.6% underwent CTC 10 years ago or more. Multiple variable logistic regression analyses revealed that Hispanic (odds ratio 2.67, 95% confidence interval 1.66-4.29, P < .001) and Black (odds ratio 2.47, 95% confidence interval 1.60-3.82, P < .001) participants were more likely than White participants to undergo CTC. CONCLUSION: Survey results suggest that nationwide utilization of CTC remains low. Black and Hispanic participants were more likely than White participants to report undergoing CTC. Promotion of CTC may reduce racial and ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer screening.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To evaluate the frequency and clinical outcome of unknown extracolonic findings in patients with cancer who underwent CT colonography (CTC). METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent CTC from February 2000-April 2016 for any indication were retrospectively included. One radiologist blinded to clinical data determined C-RADS classification for all extracolonic findings on CTC reports as follows: E1: normal examination or anatomic variant, E2: clinically unimportant, E3: likely unimportant, incompletely characterized, and E4: potentially important. Another radiologist performed an unblinded review of medical records and determined if E4 findings were previously known or new, and classified new E4 findings as clinically important or unimportant on follow-up. RESULTS: Of 855 patients, 686/855 (80.2%) had a normal examination or clinically unimportant extracolonic findings (E1 and E2) and 169/855 (19.8%) had E3-E4 extracolonic findings [99/855 (11.6%) patients had known E4 findings and 102/855 (11.9%) patients had new E4 findings]. On follow-up, among new E4 findings, 71/855 (8.3%) patients had clinically important findings, 66/855 (7.7%) had a malignant outcome previously unknown by the referring physician, and 5/855 (0.6%) had other complications, including bowel obstruction and cirrhosis. Regarding new oncological findings, new extracolonic primary tumors were detected in 13/855 (1.5%) patients, corresponding to 12.7% (13/102) of the new E4 findings. The proportion of new E4 findings on CTC with and without intravenous contrast was not significantly different [41/320 (12.8%) vs 61/535 (11.4%), p = 0.612]. CONCLUSION: Among oncological patients, detection of new significant E4 extracolonic findings at CTC occurred in 8.3% of all cases, including unknown cancers in 1.5%.

Asunto(s)