CT Colonography in the Detection of Colorectal Polyps and Cancer: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Proposed Minimum Data Set for Study Level Reporting

Published Online:Dec 1 2005https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2373050176

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the methodologic quality of available data in published reports of computed tomographic (CT) colonography by performing systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched for colonography reports published between 1994 and 2003, without language restriction. The terms colonography, colography, CT colonoscopy, CT pneumocolon, virtual colonoscopy, and virtual endoscopy were used. Studies were selected if the focus was detection of colorectal polyps verified with within-subject reference colonoscopy by using key methodologic criteria based on information presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Virtual Colonoscopy (Boston, Mass). Two reviewers independently abstracted methodologic characteristics. Per-patient and per-polyp detection rates were extracted, and authors were contacted, when necessary. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity were calculated for different lesion size categories, and Forest plots were produced. Meta-analysis of paired sensitivity and specificity was conducted by using a hierarchical model that enabled estimation of summary receiver operating characteristic curves allowing for variation in diagnostic threshold, and the average operating point was calculated. Per-polyp sensitivity was also calculated.

RESULTS: Of 1398 studies considered for inclusion, 24 met our criteria. There were 4181 patients with a study prevalence of abnormality of 15%–72%. Meta-analysis of 2610 patients, 206 of whom had large polyps, showed high per-patient average sensitivity (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 73%, 98%) and specificity (97%; 95% CI: 95%, 99%) for colonography; sensitivity and specificity decreased to 86% (95% CI: 75%, 93%) and 86% (95% CI: 76%, 93%), respectively, when the threshold was lowered to include medium polyps. When polyps of all sizes were included, studies were too heterogeneous in sensitivity (range, 45%–97%) and specificity (range, 26%–97%) to allow meaningful meta-analysis. Of 150 cancers, 144 were detected (sensitivity, 95.9%; 95% CI: 91.4%, 98.5%). Data reporting was frequently incomplete, with no generally accepted format.

CONCLUSION: CT colonography seems sufficiently sensitive and specific in the detection of large and medium polyps; it is especially sensitive in the detection of symptomatic cancer. Studies are poorly reported, however, and the authors propose a minimum data set for study reporting.

References

1 Halligan S, Fenlon HM. Virtual colonoscopy. BMJ 1999; 319: 1249–1252.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2 Dachman AH. Diagnostic performance of virtual colonoscopy. Abdom Imaging 2002;27:260–267.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3 Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004;291:1713–1719.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4 Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2191–2200.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5 Vining DJ, Gelfand DW, Bechtold RE, et al. Technical feasibility of colon imaging with helical CT and virtual reality (abstr). AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162(Suppl 1):104.
Google Scholar
6 Barish MA. Consensus statement. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Virtual Colonoscopy, Boston, Mass, October 13–15, 2003; 137–143.
Google Scholar
7 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Toward complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Radiology 2003;226:24–28.
Google Scholar
8 Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.
Google Scholar
9 Macaskill P. Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:925–932.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10 Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al. Detection of colorectal lesions: lower-dose multi–detector row helical CT colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 2003;229:775–781.
Google Scholar
11 Taylor SA, Halligan S, Saunders BP, et al. Use of multidetector-row CT colonography for detection of colorectal neoplasia in patients referred via the Department of Health “2-week-wait” initiative. Clin Radiol 2003;58:855–861.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12 Taylor SA, Halligan S, Vance M, Windsor A, Atkin W, Bartram CI. Use of multidetector-row computed tomographic colonography before flexible sigmoidoscopy in the investigation of rectal bleeding. Br J Surg 2003;90:1163–1164.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13 Bruzzi JF, Moss AC, Brennan DD, MacMathuna P, Fenlon HM. Efficacy of IV Buscopan as a muscle relaxant in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2003;13:2264–2270.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14 Ginnerup Pedersen B, Christiansen TE, Bjerregaard NC, Ljungmann K, Laurberg S. Colonoscopy and multidetector-array computed-tomographic colonography: detection rates and feasibility. Endoscopy 2003;35:736–742.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15 Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA, et al. Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003;125:311–319.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16 Pineau BC, Paskett ED, Chen GJ, et al. Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003;125:304–310.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17 Thomeer M, Carbone I, Bosmans H, et al. Stool tagging applied in thin-slice multidetector computed tomography colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003;27:132–139.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18 McFarland EG, Pilgram TK, Brink JA, et al. CT colonography: multiobserver diagnostic performance. Radiology 2002;225:380–390.
Google Scholar
19 Macari M, Bini EJ, Xue X, et al. Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology 2002;224:383–392.
Google Scholar
20 Gluecker T, Dorta G, Keller W, Jornod P, Meuli R, Schnyder P. Performance of multidetector computed tomography colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy. Gut 2002;51:207–211.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21 van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Serlie IW, et al. CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction. Radiology 2002;224:25–33.
Google Scholar
22 Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone I, et al. Detection of colorectal lesions with virtual computed tomographic colonography. Am J Surg 2002;183:124–131.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23 Wessling J, Fischbach R, Domagk D, Lugering N, Neumann E, Heindel W. Colorectal polyps: detection with multi-slice CT colonography. Rofo 2001;173:1069–1071.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24 Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, Steinauer-Gebauer AM, Wall SD, McQuaid KR. Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 2001;219:685–692.
Google Scholar
25 Regge D, Galatola G, Martincich L, et al. Use of virtual endoscopy with computerized tomography in the identification of colorectal neoplasms: prospective study with symptomatic patients [in Italian]. Radiol Med (Torino) 2000;99:449–455.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26 Spinzi G, Belloni G, Martegani A, Sangiovanni A, Del Favero C, Minoli G. Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:394–400.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27 Mendelson RM, Foster NM, Edwards JT, Wood CJ, Rosenberg MS, Forbes GM. Virtual colonoscopy compared with conventional colonoscopy: a developing technology. Med J Aust 2000;173:472–475.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28 Morrin MM, Farrell RJ, Kruskal JB, Reynolds K, McGee JB, Raptopoulos V. Utility of intravenously administered contrast material at CT colonography. Radiology 2000;217:765–771.
Google Scholar
29 Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ, et al. Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology 2000;216:704–711.
Google Scholar
30 Macari M, Milano A, Lavelle M, Berman P, Megibow AJ. Comparison of time-efficient CT colonography with two- and three-dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1543–1549.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31 Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC 3rd, Barish MA, Clarke PD, Ferrucci JT. A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1496–1503.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
32 Rex DK, Vining D, Kopecky KK. An initial experience with screening for colon polyps using spiral CT with and without CT colography (virtual colonoscopy). Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50:309–313.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33 Pickhardt PJ. Three-dimensional endoluminal CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy): comparison of three commercially available systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1599–1606.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34 Gallo TM, Galatola G, Fracchia M, et al. Computed tomography colonography in routine clinical practice. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003;15:1323–1331.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35 Shiraga N, Higuchi M, Ishibashi R, Matsukawa H, Kohda E, Sugino Y. Clinical application and usefulness of MDCT colonography in diagnosis of colorectal neoplasms, including early colorectal cancer [in Japanese]. Nippon Rinsho 2003;61(suppl 7):164–167.
Google Scholar
36 Rottgen R, Schroder RJ, Lorenz M, et al. CT-colonography with the 16-slice CT for the diagnostic evaluation of colorectal neoplasms and inflammatory colon diseases [in German]. Rofo 2003;175:1384–1391.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37 Munikrishnan V, Gillams AR, Lees WR, Vaizey CJ, Boulos PB. Prospective study comparing multislice CT colonography with colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal cancer and polyps. Dis Colon Rectum 2003;46:1384–1390.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38 Geenen RW, Hussain SM, Cademartiri F, Poley JW, Siersema PD, Krestin GP. CT and MR colonography: scanning techniques, postprocessing, and emphasis on polyp detection. RadioGraphics 2004;24:e18.
Google Scholar
39 Macari M, Bini EJ, Jacobs SL, Lange N, Lui YW. Filling defects at CT colonography: pseudo- and diminutive lesions (the good), polyps (the bad), flat lesions, masses, and carcinomas (the ugly). RadioGraphics 2003;23:1073–1091.
Google Scholar
40 Vos FM, van Gelder RE, Serlie IW, et al. Three-dimensional display modes for CT colonography: conventional 3D virtual colonoscopy versus unfolded cube projection. Radiology 2003;228:878–885.
Google Scholar
41 Sosna J, Morrin MM, Kruskal JB, Farrell RJ, Nasser I, Raptopoulos V. Colorectal neoplasms: role of intravenous contrast-enhanced CT colonography. Radiology 2003;228:152–156.
Google Scholar
42 Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, Mangiapane F, Piacentini F, Passariello R. Feasibility of ultra-low-dose multislice CT colonography for the detection of colorectal lesions: preliminary experience. Eur Radiol 2003;13:1297–1302.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43 Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Bria E, et al. Contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography in the follow-up of colorectal cancer patients: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 2003;13:883–889.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
44 Yee J, Kumar NN, Hung RK, Akerkar GA, Kumar PR, Wall SD. Comparison of supine and prone scanning separately and in combination at CT colonography. Radiology 2003;226:653–661.
Google Scholar
45 Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Trenna S, et al. Multislice spiral CT colonography in the evaluation of colorectal neoplasms [in Italian]. Radiol Med (Torino) 2002;104:394–403.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
46 Zhou C, Li J, Zhao X. Spiral CT in the preoperative staging of colorectal carcinoma-radiologic-pathologic correlation [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi 2002;24:274–277.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
47 Wong BC, Wong WM, Chan JK, et al. Virtual colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancers in a Chinese population. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002;17:1323–1327.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
48 Summers RM, Jerebko AK, Franaszek M, Malley JD, Johnson CD. Colonic polyps: complementary role of computer-aided detection in CT colonography. Radiology 2002;225:391–399.
Google Scholar
49 Durkalski VL, Palesch YY, Pineau BC, Vining DJ, Cotton PB. The virtual colonoscopy study: a large multicenter clinical trial designed to compare two diagnostic screening procedures. Control Clin Trials 2002;23:570–583.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
50 Luo M, Shan H, Zhou K. CT virtual colonoscopy in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy. Chin Med J 2002;115:1023–1026.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
51 Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeeck BG. Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results—polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology 2002;224:393–403.
Google Scholar
52 Yoshida H, Nappi J, MacEneaney P, Rubin DT, Dachman AH. Computer-aided diagnosis scheme for detection of polyps at CT colonography. RadioGraphics 2002;22:963–979.
Google Scholar
53 Cohnen M, Vogt C, Aurich V, Beck A, Haussinger D, Modder U. Multi-slice CT-colonography in low-dose technique: preliminary results. Rofo 2002;174:835–838.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
54 Rottgen R, Schroder R, Gutberlet M, Lopez-Haninnen E, Hoffmann KT, Felix R. Virtual colonoscopy with multi-detector computerized tomography [in German]. Rontgenpraxis 2002;54:179–185.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
55 Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone I, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): blinded prospective comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. Endoscopy 2002;34:441–446.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
56 Gluecker T, Meuwly JY, Pescatore P, et al. Effect of investigator experience in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1405–1409.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
57 Neri E, Giusti P, Battolla L, et al. Colorectal cancer: role of CT colonography in preoperative evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy. Radiology 2002;223:615–619.
Google Scholar
58 Svensson MH, Svensson E, Hellstrom M. Bowel wall visualisation at CT colonography. Acta Radiol 2002;43:87–95.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
59 Hara AK, Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, Welch TJ, McCollough CH, Harmsen WS. CT colonography: single- versus multi-detector row imaging. Radiology 2001;219:461–465.
Google Scholar
60 Britton I, Dover S, Vallance R. Immediate CT pneumocolon for failed colonoscopy: comparison with routine pneumocolon. Clin Radiol 2001;56:89–93.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
61 McFarland EG, Brink JA, Pilgram TK, et al. Spiral CT colonography: reader agreement and diagnostic performance with two- and three-dimensional image-display techniques. Radiology 2001;218:375–383.
Google Scholar
62 Miao YM, Amin Z, Healy J, et al. A prospective single centre study comparing computed tomography pneumocolon against colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal neoplasms. Gut 2000;47:832–837.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
63 Pescatore P, Glucker T, Delarive J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Gut 2000;47:126–130.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
64 Morrin MM, Farrell RJ, Raptopoulos V, McGee JB, Bleday R, Kruskal JB. Role of virtual computed tomographic colonography in patients with colorectal cancers and obstructing colorectal lesions. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:303–311.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
65 Kay CL, Kulling D, Hawes RH, Young JW, Cotton PB. Virtual endoscopy: comparison with colonoscopy in the detection of space-occupying lesions of the colon. Endoscopy 2000;32:226–232.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
66 Morrin MM, Kruskal JB, Farrell RJ, Goldberg SN, McGee JB, Raptopoulos V. Endoluminal CT colonography after an incomplete endoscopic colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:913–918.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
67 Macari M, Berman P, Dicker M, Milano A, Megibow AJ. Usefulness of CT colonography in patients with incomplete colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:561–564.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
68 Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Clarke PD, Ferrucci JT. Colorectal neoplasm detection using virtual colonoscopy: a feasibility study. Gut 1998;43:806–811.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
69 Dachman AH, Kuniyoshi JK, Boyle CM, et al. CT colonography with three-dimensional problem solving for detection of colonic polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:989–995.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
70 Harvey CJ, Amin Z, Hare CM, et al. Helical CT pneumocolon to assess colonic tumors: radiologic-pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170:1439–1443.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
71 Hara AK, Johnson CD, Reed JE, et al. Detection of colorectal polyps with CT colography: initial assessment of sensitivity and specificity. Radiology 1997;205:59–65.
Google Scholar
72 Hara AK, Johnson CD, Reed JE, et al. Reducing data size and radiation dose for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:1181–1184.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
73 Lipscomb G, Loughrey G, Thakker M, Rees W, Nicholson D. A prospective study of abdominal computerized tomography and colonoscopy in the diagnosis of colonic disease in an elderly population. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1996;8:887–891.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
74 Sosna J, Morrin MM, Kruskal JB, Lavin PT, Rosen MP, Raptopoulos V. CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1593–1598.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
75 Deeks J. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening test. In: Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London, England: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001.
Google Scholar
76 Cooper LS, Chalmers TC, McCally M, Berrier J, Sacks HS. The poor quality of early evaluations of magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 1988;259:3277–3280.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
77 Dachman AH, Zalis ME. Quality and consistency in CT colonography and research reporting. Radiology 2004;230:319–323.
Google Scholar
78 Shah SG, Saunders BP, Brooker JC, Williams CB. Magnetic imaging of colonoscopy: an audit of looping, accuracy and ancillary maneuvers. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:1–8.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
79 Gopalswamy N, Shenoy VN, Choudhry U, et al. Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate? Gastrointest Endosc 1997;46:497–502.
Google Scholar
80 Burling D, Halligan S, Taylor SA, et al. Polyp measurement by CT colonography: agreement with colonoscopy, and effect of viewing conditions on inter- and intra-observer agreement. AJR Am J Roentgenol (in press).
Google Scholar
81 Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997;112:24–28.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
82 Pickhardt PJ. By-patient performance characteristics of CT colonography: importance of polyp size threshold data. Radiology 2003;229:291–293.
Google Scholar
83 Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:667–676.
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2005

Vol. 237, No. 3

Metrics

Altmetric Score

PDF download