Screening CT Colonography Research Articles

A Program Offering CT Colonography for Colorectal Cancer Screening Avoided Colonoscopy and Sedation Risks in High-Risk Heart Transplant Candidates and Expedited Screening: A Retrospective Observational Study

A Program Offering CT Colonography for Colorectal Cancer Screening Avoided Colonoscopy and Sedation Risks in High-Risk Heart Transplant Candidates and Expedited Screening: A Retrospective Observational Study

AI-based abdominal CT measurements of orthotopic and ectopic fat predict mortality and cardiometabolic disease risk in adults.

To evaluate the utility of CT-based abdominal fat measures for predicting the risk of death and cardiometabolic disease in an asymptomatic adult screening population. Fully automated AI tools quantifying abdominal adipose tissue (L3 level visceral [VAT] and subcutaneous [SAT] fat area, visceral-to-subcutaneous fat ratio [VSR], VAT attenuation), muscle attenuation (L3 level), andliver attenuation were applied to non-contrast CT scans in asymptomatic adults undergoing CT colonography (CTC). Longitudinal follow-up documented subsequent deaths, cardiovascular events, and diabetes. ROC andtime-to-event analyses were performed to generate AUCs andhazard ratios (HR) binned by octile. A total of 9223 adults (mean age, 57 years; 4071:5152 M:F) underwent screening CTC from April 2004 to December 2016. 549 patients died on follow-up (median, nine years). Fat measures outperformed BMI for predicting mortality risk-5-year AUCs for muscle attenuation, VSR, and BMI were 0.721, 0.661, and 0.499, respectively. Higher visceral, muscle, and liver fat were associated with increased mortality risk-VSR > 1.53, HR = 3.1; muscle attenuation < 15 HU, HR = 5.4; liver attenuation < 45 HU, HR = 2.3. Higher VAT area and VSR were associated with increased cardiovascular event and diabetes risk-VSR > 1.59, HR = 2.6 for cardiovascular event; VAT area > 291 cm2, HR = 6.3 for diabetes (p < 0.001). A U-shaped association was observed for SAT with a higher risk of death for very low and very high SAT. Fully automated CT-based measures of abdominal fat are predictive of mortality and cardiometabolic disease risk in asymptomatic adults and uncover trends that are not reflected in anthropomorphic measures. Fully automated CT-based measures of abdominal fat soundly outperform anthropometric measures for mortality and cardiometabolic risk prediction in asymptomatic patients. Abdominal fat depots associated with metabolic dysregulation and cardiovascular disease can be derived from abdominal CT. Fully automated AI body composition tools can measure factors associated with increased mortality and cardiometabolic risk. CT-based abdominal fat measuresuncover trends in mortality and cardiometabolic risk not captured by BMI in asymptomatic outpatients.

AI-generated CT body composition biomarkers associated with increased mortality risk in socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals.

To evaluate the relationship between socioeconomic disadvantage using national area deprivation index (ADI) and CT-based body composition measures derived from fully automated artificial intelligence (AI) tools to identify body composition measures associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality and adverse cardiovascular events. Fully automated AI body composition tools quantifying abdominal aortic calcium, abdominal fat (visceral [VAT], visceral-to-subcutaneous ratio [VSR]), and muscle attenuation (muscle HU) were applied to non-contrast CT examinations in adults undergoing screening CT colonography (CTC). Patients were partitioned into 5 socioeconomic groups based on the national ADI rank at the census block group level. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to determine the association between national ADI and body composition measures. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare means across groups. Odds ratios (ORs) were generated using high-risk, high specificity (90% specificity) body composition thresholds with the most disadvantaged groups being compared to the least disadvantaged group (ADI < 20). 7785 asymptomatic adults (mean age, 57years; 4361:3424 F:M) underwent screening CTC from April 2004-December 2016. ADI rank data were available in 7644 patients. Median ADI was 31 (IQR 22-43). Aortic calcium, VAT, and VSR had positive correlation with ADI and muscle attenuation had a negative correlation with ADI (all p < .001). Compared with the least disadvantaged group, mean differences for the most disadvantaged group (ADI > 80) were: Aortic calcium (Agatston) = 567, VAT = 27 cm2, VSR = 0.1, and muscle HU = -6 HU (all p < .05). Compared with the least disadvantaged group, the most disadvantaged group had significantly higher odds of having high-risk body composition measures: Aortic calcium OR = 3.8, VAT OR = 2.5, VSR OR = 2.0, and muscle HU OR = 3.1(all p < .001). Fully automated CT body composition tools show that socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with high-risk body composition measures and can be used to identify individuals at increased risk for all-cause mortality and adverse cardiovascular events.

Sociodemographic Factors and Screening CT Colonography Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

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.

Growth rates and histopathological outcomes of small (6–9 mm) colorectal polyps based on CT colonography surveillance and endoscopic removal

Background and aimsThe natural history of small polyps is not well established and rests on limited evidence from barium enema studies decades ago. Patients with one or two small polyps...

Single CT Appointment for Double Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is the Time Ripe?

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.

Colorectal Cancer: Performance and Evaluation for CT Colonography Screening- A Multicenter Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial.

Background Most radiologists reporting CT colonography (CTC) do not undergo compulsory performance accreditation, potentially lowering diagnostic sensitivity. Purpose To determine whether 1-day individualized training in CTC reporting improves diagnostic sensitivity of experienced radiologists for 6-mm or larger lesions, the durability of any improvement, and any associated factors. Materials and Methods This prospective, multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial was performed in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales between April 2017 and January 2020. CTC services were cluster randomized into intervention (1-day training plus feedback) or control (no training or feedback) arms. Radiologists in the intervention arm attended a 1-day workshop focusing on CTC reporting pitfalls with individualized feedback. Radiologists in the control group received no training. Sensitivity for 6-mm or larger lesions was tested at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months thereafter via interpretation of 10 CTC scans at each time point. The primary outcome was the mean difference in per-lesion sensitivity between arms at 1 month, analyzed using multilevel regression after adjustment for baseline sensitivity. Secondary outcomes included per-lesion sensitivity at 6- and 12-month follow-up, sensitivity for flat neoplasia, and effect of prior CTC experience. Results A total of 69 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention (31 clusters, 80 radiologists) or control (38 clusters, 59 radiologists) arm. Radiologists were experienced (median, 500-999 CTC scans interpreted) and reported CTC scans routinely (median, 151-200 scans per year). One-month sensitivity improved after intervention (66.4% [659 of 992]) compared with sensitivity in the control group (42.4% [278 of 655]; difference = 20.8%; 95% CI: 14.6, 27.0; P < .001). Improvements were maintained at 6 (66.4% [572 of 861] vs 50.5% [283 of 560]; difference = 13.0%; 95% CI: 7.4, 18.5; P < .001) and 12 (63.7% [310 of 487] vs 44.4% [187 of 421]; difference = 16.7%; 95% CI: 10.3, 23.1; P < .001) months. This beneficial effect applied to flat lesions (difference = 22.7%; 95% CI: 15.5, 29.9; P < .001) and was independent of career experience (≥1500 CTC scans: odds ratio = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.36; P = .22). Conclusion For radiologists evaluating CT colonography studies, a 1-day training intervention yielded sustained improvement in detection of clinically relevant colorectal neoplasia, independent of previous career experience. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02892721 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Pickhardt in this issue. An earlier incorrect version appeared online and in print. This article was corrected on February 28, 2022.

Deep learning in CT colonography: differentiating premalignant from benign colorectal polyps

ObjectivesTo investigate the differentiation of premalignant from benign colorectal polyps detected by CT colonography using deep learning.MethodsIn this retrospective analysis of an average risk colorectal cancer screening sample, polyps of all size categories and morphologies were manually segmented on supine and prone CT colonography images and classified as premalignant (adenoma) or benign (hyperplastic polyp or regular mucosa) according to histopathology. Two deep learning models SEG and noSEG were trained on 3D CT colonography image subvolumes to predict polyp class, and model SEG was additionally trained with polyp segmentation masks. Diagnostic performance was validated in an independent external multicentre test sample. Predictions were analysed with the visualisation technique Grad-CAM++.ResultsThe training set consisted of 107 colorectal polyps in 63 patients (mean age: 63 ± 8 years, 40 men) comprising 169 polyp segmentations. The external test set included 77 polyps in 59 patients comprising 118 polyp segmentations. Model SEG achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.83 and 80% sensitivity at 69% specificity for differentiating premalignant from benign polyps. Model noSEG yielded a ROC-AUC of 0.75, 80% sensitivity at 44% specificity, and an average Grad-CAM++ heatmap score of ≥ 0.25 in 90% of polyp tissue.ConclusionsIn this proof-of-concept study, deep learning enabled the differentiation of premalignant from benign colorectal polyps detected with CT colonography and the visualisation of image regions important for predictions. The approach did not require polyp segmentation and thus has the potential to facilitate the identification of high-risk polyps as an automated second reader.Key Points• Non-invasive deep learning image analysis may differentiate premalignant from benign colorectal polyps found in CT colonography scans.• Deep learning autonomously learned to focus on polyp tissue for predictions without the need for prior polyp segmentation by experts.• Deep learning potentially improves the diagnostic accuracy of CT colonography in colorectal cancer screening by allowing for a more precise selection of patients who would benefit from endoscopic polypectomy, especially for patients with polyps of 6–9 mm size.

Partial Inversion of Appendix Simulating A Caecal Polyp at Screening CT Colonography: The Importance of Scrutinising 3D and 2D Images of the Region of Interest to Exclude Other Possible Appendiceal Pathologies

Partial Inversion of Appendix Simulating A Caecal Polyp at Screening CT Colonography: The Importance of Scrutinising 3D and 2D Images of the Region of Interest to Exclude Other Possible Appendiceal Pathologies

Colorectal Cancer Screening with Computed Tomography Colonography: Single Region Experience in Kazakhstan.

Background/AimsThe aim of our study was to determine the efficacy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). MethodsA total of 612 females and 588 males aged 45 to 75 years were enrolled in CTC screening. CTC was performed following standard bowel preparation and colonic insufflation with carbon dioxide. The main outcomes were the detection rate of CRC and advanced adenoma (AA), prevalence of colorectal lesions in relation to socio-demographic and health factors, and overall diagnostic performance of CTC. ResultsOverall, 56.5% of the 1,200 invited subjects underwent CTC screening. The sensitivity for CRC and AA was 0.89 and 0.97, respectively, while the specificity was 0.71 and 0.99, respectively. The prevalence of CRC and AA was 3.0% (18/593) and 7.1% (42/593), respectively, with the highest CRC prevalence in the 66-75 age group (≥12 times; odds ratio [OR], 12.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.45-32.92). CRC and AA prevalence were inversely correlated with Asian descent, physical activity, and negative fecal immunochemical test results (OR=0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.83; OR=0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.68; OR=0.5; 95% CI, 0.07-3.85, respectively). ConclusionsOur study revealed high accuracy of CTC in diagnosing colonic neoplasms, good compliance with CTC screening, and high detection rate of CRC.

P-17 CT colonography: A minimally invasive screening option for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer diagnosed in both men and women in the United States, with over 150,000 new cases annually. Colon cancer can be quite devastating, especially when diagnosed at a late stage, it becomes the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths. Fortunately, the mortality rates of colorectal cancers have been declining with the implementation of regular screening starting at the age of 45. While up to 90% of colon cancers are preventable with appropriate screening, many patients are reluctant to undergo a colonoscopy. It is estimated 24 million Americans decline screening colonoscopy. In addition, minority communities are less likely to be screened for colorectal cancer, leading to higher rates of late-stage diagnosis and mortality. Therefore, CT colonography is currently being explored as a developing, less invasive tool to screen for colorectal carcinoma. CT colonography could be a viable option for preventative colorectal cancer screening and could subsequently decrease mortality related to non-compliance with colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Using public databases, a literature review was performed following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Additionally, further research was done into the CT colonography and its role in colon cancer screening and surveillance. 1) Summarize the current role of CT Colonography has in the screening of colorectal cancer. 2) Review the advantages and disadvantages of using CT colonography in screening for colorectal cancer. 3) Review the current literature and outcomes for CT colonography as a screening tool for colorectal cancer. 4) Explore the evolving role of imaging as a non-invasive screening option for colorectal cancer. After viewing our exhibit, we hope the viewer learns about the current gold standard screening modalities for colorectal cancer. In addition, our exhibit aims to give the viewer a better understanding of CT colonography and its use in screening of colorectal cancers.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Update and Computed Tomography for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Privately Insured Population

The Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandated private health plans to fully cover the services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. In June 2016, the Task Force added computed tomography colonography to its list of recommended tests for colorectal cancer screening. This study evaluates the association among the updated recommendation, patient cost-sharing obligations, and the uptake of colorectal cancer screening through computed tomography colonography in the privately insured population. Using individual claims from the 2010-2018 IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, monthly screening computed tomography colonography utilization rates per 100,000 privately insured beneficiaries aged 50-64 years and the monthly proportions of these services delivered by in-network providers for which patients had to bear a portion of the procedure costs were calculated, and an interrupted time series analysis was performed. The study was conducted between January and May 2020. Although the proportion of in-network procedures subject to patient cost sharing declined from 38.2% in 2010 to 10.2% in early 2016, the monthly utilization remained nearly constant. The announcement of the updated recommendation was associated with an immediate increase in the monthly screening computed tomography colonography utilization rate from 0.4 to 0.6 procedures per 100,000 individuals but with no change in the proportion of in-network procedures subject to patient cost sharing. In an environment of already largely eliminated patient cost sharing, the release of supportive evidence-based recommendations by a recognized credible body was associated with an immediate increase in computed tomography colonography use for colorectal cancer screening in the privately insured population.

Intestinal malrotation in adults: prevalence and findings based on CT colonography.

Intestinal malrotation is largely a pediatric diagnosis, but initial detection can be made in adulthood. CT colonography (CTC) provides an ideal means for estimating prevalence. Our purpose was to evaluate the prevalence and imaging findings of intestinal malrotation in asymptomatic adults at CTC screening, as well as incomplete optical colonoscopy (OC) referral. The CTC database of a single academic institution was searched for cases of intestinal malrotation (developmental nonrotation). Prevalence was estimated from 11,176 adults undergoing CTC. Demographic, clinical, imaging (CTC and other abdominal exams), and surgical data were reviewed. 27 cases of malrotation were confirmed (mean age 62 ± 9years; 15M/12F), including 17 from the CTC screening cohort (0.17% prevalence) and 10 from incomplete OC (0.75% prevalence; p < 0.001). Most cases (59%; 16/27) were initially diagnosed at CTC. In 67% (12/18); the presence of malrotation was missed on at least one relevant abdominal imaging examination. At least 22% (6/27) had a history of unexplained, chronic intermittent abdominal pain. At CTC, the SMA-SMV relationship was normal in only 11% (3/27). The ileocecal valve was located in the RLQ in only 22% (6/27). Two patients (7%) had associated findings of heterotaxy (polysplenia). The prevalence of intestinal malrotation was four times greater for patients referred from incomplete OC compared with primary screening CTC, likely related to anatomic challenges at endoscopy. Malrotation was frequently missed at other abdominal imaging examinations. CTC can uncover unexpected cases of malrotation in adults, which may be relevant in terms of potential for future complications.

Use of Screening CT Colonography by Age and Race: A Study of Potential Access Barriers Related to Medicare Noncoverage Based on Data From the ACR's National CT Colonography Registry.

The primary objectives of this investigation were to evaluate the use of screening CT colonography (CTC) examinations by age comparing individuals of Medicare-eligible age to younger cohorts and to determine if the association between use of CTC and Medicare-eligible age varies by race. Although the Affordable Care Act requires commercial insurance coverage of screening CTC, Medicare does not cover screening CTC. Using the ACR's CTC registry, the distribution of procedures by age was evaluated using a negative binomial model with patient age (to capture overall trend), indicator of Medicare-eligible age (to capture immediate changes in trend at age 65), and their interaction (to capture gradual changes after age 65) as independent variables. The association between the number of screening CTCs and age was compared by racial identity. The CTC registry contained data on 12,648 screening examinations. Between ages 52 and 64, the number of screening examinations increased; each additional age year was associated with a 5.3% (P < .001) increase in the number of screenings. However, after age 65, the number of screening examinations decreased by-6.9% per additional year of age above 65 compared with the trend between ages 52 and 64 (P < .001). The modal age group for CTC use was 65 to 69 years in white and 55 to 59 in black individuals. After age 65, the number of screening CTC examinations decreased, likely due, at least in part, to lack of Medicare coverage. Medicare noncoverage may have a disproportionate impact on black patients and other racial minorities.

Diagnostic Performance of Multitarget Stool DNA and CT Colonography for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BackgroundMultitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) screening has increased rapidly since simultaneous approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2014, whereas CT colonography screening remains underused and is not covered by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.PurposeTo report postapproval clinical experience with mt-sDNA screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and compare results with CT colonography screening at the same center.Materials and MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, asymptomatic adults underwent clinical mt-sDNA screening during a 5-year interval (2014-2019). Electronic medical records were searched to verify test results and document subsequent optical colonoscopy and histopathologic findings. A similar analysis was performed for CT colonography screening during a 15-year interval (2004-2019), with consideration of thresholds for positivity of both 6-mm and 10-mm polyp sizes. χ2 or two-sample t tests were used for group comparisons.ResultsA total of 3987 asymptomatic adult patients (mean age, 64 years ± 9 [standard deviation]; 2567 women) underwent mt-sDNA screening and 9656 patients (mean age, 57 years ± 8; 5200 women) underwent CT colonography. Test-positive rates for mt-sDNA and for 6-mm- and 10-mm-threshold CT colonography were 15.2%, 16.4%, and 6.7%, respectively. Optical colonoscopy follow-up rates for positive results of mt-sDNA and 6-mm- and 10-mm-threshold CT colonography were 13.1%, 12.3%, and 5.9%, respectively. Positive predictive values (PPVs) for any neoplasm 6 mm or greater, advanced neoplasia, and CRC for mt-sDNA were 54.2%, 22.7%, and 1.9% respectively; for 6-mm-threshold CT colonography, PPVs were 76.8%, 44.3%, and 2.7%; for 10-mm-threshold CT colonography, PPVs were 84.5%, 75.2%, and 5.2%, respectively (P < .001 for mt-sDNA vs CT colonography for all except 6-mm CRC at CT colonography). For mt-sDNA versus 6-mm-threshold CT colonography, overall detection rates for advanced neoplasia were 2.7% and 5.0%, respectively (P < .001); corresponding detection rates for CRC were 0.23% and 0.31%, respectively (P = .43).ConclusionThe detection rates of advanced neoplasia at CT colonography screening were greater than those of multitarget stool DNA. Detection rates were similar for colorectal cancer.© RSNA, 2020See also the editorial by Yee in this issue.

Hormonal Evaluation of Incidental Adrenal Masses: The Exception, Not the Rule.

Incidental adrenal masses (IAMs) occur in approximately 4% of patients undergoing abdominal CT scans for any indication. Hormonal evaluation is recommended for all IAMs. The purpose of this study was to identify the rate of IAMs in a screening population and to determine the adequacy of endocrine evaluation of newly identified IAMs based on established guidelines. This was a retrospective analysis of 6913 patients undergoing a non-contrast screening CT colonography at a single academic medical center between June 2004 and July 2012. The prevalence of IAMs in this asymptomatic screening population was 2.1% (n = 148). Of those patients, 8.8% (n = 11) underwent some form of hormonal evaluation and only 6.4% (n = 8) patients had a "complete" workup. Cortisol, metanephrines, and an aldosterone-renin ratio were evaluated in 8.0%, 7.2%, and 4.0% of patients, respectively. Of the patients (n = 11) who underwent hormonal evaluation, 27.3% had functional masses and 36.4% underwent surgery. Of those who did not have hormonal evaluation, 42.1% (n = 48) had comorbidities that should have prompted hormonal evaluation based on established guidelines. Hormonal evaluation was not performed in 89.4% of patients with hypertension and 21.1% of patients with diabetes. 88.9% of patients on three or more antihypertensive medications did not undergo any hormonal evaluation. Compliance with IAM workup guidelines is poor, which may result in missed diagnosis of functional adrenal masses. Establishment of a robust protocol and education on appropriate workup for IAMs is necessary for adequate hormonal evaluation.

Performance and evaluation in CT colonography screening: A cluster randomised trial

Background: Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a widely available whole-colon investigation. Most radiologists interpreting CTC are trained in the technique, but variability in their performance is unknown, as is the room for improvement with targeted interventions. We conducted a randomised trial to establish variation in interpretation accuracy and if structured training increases experienced readers’ sensitivity.

Uptake and barriers for implementation of the resect and discard strategy: an international survey.

Background and study aims Optical real-time diagnosis (= resect-and-discard strategy) is an alternative to histopathology for diminutive colorectal polyps. However, clinical adoption of this approach seems sparse. We were interested in evaluating potential clinical uptake and barriers for implementation of this approach. Methods We conducted an international survey using the “Google forms” platform. Nine endoscopy societies distributed the survey. Survey questions measured current clinical uptake and barriers for implementing the resect-and-discard strategy , perceived cancer risk associated with diminutive polyps and potential concerns with using CT-colonography as follow-up, as well as non-resection of diminutive polyps. Results Eight hundred and eight endoscopists participated in the survey. 84.2 % (95 % CI 81.6 %–86.7 %) of endoscopists are currently not using the resect-and-discard strategy and 59.9 % (95 % CI 56.5 %–63.2 %) do not believe that the resect-and-discard strategy is feasible for implementation in its current form. European (38.5 %) and Asian (45 %) endoscopists had the highest rates of resect-and-discard practice, while Canadian (13.8 %) and American (5.1 %) endoscopists had some of the lowest implementation rates. 80.3 % (95 % CI 77.5 %–83.0 %) of endoscopists believe that using the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive polyps will not increase cancer risk. 48.4 % (95 % CI 45.0 %–51.9 %) of endoscopists believe that leaving diminutive polyps in place is associated with increased cancer risk. This proportion was slightly higher (54.7 %; 95 % CI 53.6 %–60.4 %) when asked if current CT-colonography screening practice might increase cancer risks. Conclusion Clinical uptake of resect-and-discard is very low. Most endoscopists believe that resect-and-discard is not feasible for clinical implementation in its current form. The most important barriers for implementation are fear of making an incorrect diagnosis, assigning incorrect surveillance intervals and medico-legal consequences.

Geographic Dispersion and Rural Versus Urban Utilization of CT Colonography in the United States.

To assess the geographic dispersion of CT colonography (CTC) as well as differences in CTC utilization in rural versus urban areas in individuals with commercial insurance. Claims data from approximately 18.5 million commercially insured individuals across the United States were used to determine CTC utilization based on geographic area. Geographic areas were defined as metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and statewide non-MSAs. Utilization rates per 100,000 covered person-years were calculated for each geographic area for both screening and diagnostic CTC using 2017 data (the most recent full-year data available). Differences in CTC utilization between MSAs (urban) and non-MSAs (rural) were evaluated using weighted multivariate logistic regression. CTC is widely dispersed across the United States with substantial geographic variability. Utilization of screening CTC was considerably lower among individuals residing in rural areas compared with those in urban areas (adjusted odds ratio= 0.353, P= .005). For individuals aged 50 to 64 years, screening CTC utilization was 2.38 per 100,000 in rural areas versus 6.67 per 100,000 in urban areas (P= .005). Utilization of diagnostic CTC was also lower in rural compared with urban areas, though this difference was not statistically significant (8.40 per 100,000 versus 13.11 per 100,000 respectively, P= .070). Although CTC is performed widely across the United States, utilization is generally low and varies substantially based on geographic region. CTC utilization is lower among individuals in rural compared with urban areas.

Colorectal Cancer Outcomes in a Large Negative Computed Tomography Colonography Screening Cohort

IntroductionAt our institution, the most common cohort of individuals having computed tomography colonography (CTC) are those that require primary screening for colorectal cancer and were unable to tolerate or failed optical colonoscopy (OC). CTC is an efficient method for detecting polyps, masses, flat-lesions, and overt colorectal cancer, serving as a viable alternative to colonoscopy. This study follows patients with negative CTC results to evaluate the number of clinically significant lesions that may have been potentially missed by CTC. We suspect this number will be exceedingly low given the high sensitivity of this technique. MethodsAll patients with negative CTC screening (n = 509) in the Eastern Health Medical Health Region, located in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada were included. An electronic medical record review was undertaken, encompassing provider, colonoscopy, imaging, and histopathology reports. Subjects were also checked through the Newfoundland Cancer Clinic Registry Database. All incidents of colorectal cancer were recorded. ResultsThe study cohort comprised 509 subjects. These subjects were followed for an average of 7.88 years. Two colorectal adenocarcinomas in this cohort were identified representing a crude cancer incidence rate of 0.49 cancers per 1000 patient years, and a rate of 0.39% following a normal CTC. ConclusionsColorectal cancer presenting clinically is rare in the 7.88 years following a negative CTC, suggesting CTC is equally effective for colorectal screening compared to OC. Furthermore, current guidelines that recommend interval CTC screening every 5 years is conservative, and interval screening can likely be recommended over a longer time frame.