Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This prospective trial was designed to compare the performance characteristics of five different screening tests in parallel for the detection of advanced colonic neoplasia: CT colonography (CTC), colonoscopy (OC), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), faecal immunochemical stool testing (FIT) and faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). METHODS: Average risk adults provided stool specimens for FOBT and FIT, and underwent same-day low-dose 64-multidetector row CTC and OC using segmentally unblinded OC as the standard of reference. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for each single test, and for combinations of FS and stool tests. CTC radiation exposure was measured, and patient comfort levels and preferences were assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS: 221 adenomas were detected in 307 subjects who completed CTC (mean radiation dose, 4.5 mSv) and OC; 269 patients provided stool samples for both FOBT and FIT. Sensitivities of OC, CTC, FS, FIT and FOBT for advanced colonic neoplasia were 100% (95% CI 88.4% to 100%), 96.7% (82.8% to 99.9%), 83.3% (95% CI 65.3% to 94.4%), 32% (95% CI 14.9% to 53.5) and 20% (95% CI 6.8% to 40.7%), respectively. Combination of FS with FOBT or FIT led to no relevant increase in sensitivity. 12 of 45 advanced adenomas were smaller than 10 mm. 46% of patients preferred CTC and 37% preferred OC (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High-resolution and low-dose CTC is feasible for colorectal cancer screening and reaches sensitivities comparable with OC for polyps >5 mm. For patients who refuse full bowel preparation and OC or CTC, FS should be preferred over stool tests. However, in cases where stool tests are performed, FIT should be recommended rather than FOBT.

Computer-aided detection in CT colonography: initial clinical experience using a prototype system.

Computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithms help to detect colonic polyps at CT colonography (CTC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CAD versus an expert reader in CTC. One hundred forty individuals (67 men, 73 women; mean age, 59 years) underwent screening 64-MDCT colonography after full cathartic bowel cleansing without fecal tagging. One expert reader interpreted supine and prone scans using a 3D workstation with integrated CAD used as "second reader." The system's sensitivity for the detection of polyps, the number of false-positive findings, and its running time were evaluated. Polyps were classified as small (< or =5 mm), medium (6-9 mm), and large (> or =10 mm). A total of 118 polyps (small, 85; medium, 19; large, 14) were found in 56 patients. CAD detected 72 polyps (61%) with an average of 2.2 false-positives. Sensitivity was 51% (43/85) for small, 90% (17/19) for medium, and 86% (12/14) for large polyps. For all polyps, per-patient sensitivity was 89% (50/56) for the radiologist and 73% (41/56) for CAD. For large and medium polyps, per-patient sensitivity was 100% for the radiologist, and 96% for CAD. In conclusion, CAD shows high sensitivity in the detection of clinically significant polyps with acceptable false-positive rates.