Computed tomography colonography for the practicing radiologist: A review of current recommendations on methodology and clinical indications.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents one of the most relevant causes of morbidity and mortality in Western societies. CRC screening is actually based on faecal occult blood testing, and optical colonoscopy still remains the gold standard screening test for cancer detection. However, computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) constitutes a reliable, minimally-invasive method to rapidly and effectively evaluate the entire colon for clinically relevant lesions. Furthermore, even if the benefits of its employment in CRC mass screening have not fully established yet, CT colonography may represent a reasonable alternative screening test in patients who cannot undergo or refuse colonoscopy. Therefore, the purpose of our review is to illustrate the most updated recommendations on methodology and the current clinical indications of CT colonography, according to the data of the existing relevant literature.

MRI tumor volume reduction rate vs tumor regression grade in the pre-operative re-staging of locally advanced rectal cancer after chemo-radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare tumor volume reduction rate (TVRR) measured by MR volumetry after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and pathological tumor regression grade (TRG) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 20 patients with LARC (cT3-T4) treated with CRT followed by Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) between April 2011 and April 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. Pre- and post- CRT tumor volumes (MR volumetry) were measured on 3D MR sequences. TVRR was determined using the equation TVRR (%)=(pre-CRT tumor volume-post-CRT tumor volume)×100/pre-CRT tumor volume. The downstaging (defined as ypT0-T2) of tumor mass was evaluated and the correlation between TVRR and TRG was calculated with the method proposed by Dworak using the Spearman rank test. RESULTS: The median TVRR was 77.3% (range, 26.4-99.3%); TVRR was >60% in 18 cases (90%) and in 8 of these patients (44.4 %) it was >80%. Downstaging of tumor lesions was obtained in 15 patients (75%). In 4 cases there was a complete tumor regression (TRG4) at histological examination and in the same patients there was also a TVRR>80% measured by MR volumetry. A statistically significant correlation between TVRR and TRG (r(s)=0.5466, p=0.0126) was observed. CONCLUSION: TVRR after preoperative CRT correlates with TRG in LARC. The MR volumetry is a prognostic factor to estimate the tumor response after preoperative CRT. TVRR data may be an useful biomarker for tailoring surgery and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy.

CT colonography with rectal iodine tagging: Feasibility and comparison with oral tagging in a colorectal cancer screening population.

PURPOSE: To evaluate feasibility, diagnostic performance, patient acceptance, and overall examination time of CT colonography (CTC) performed through rectal administration of iodinated contrast material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six-hundred asymptomatic subjects (male:female=270:330; mean 63 years) undergoing CTC for colorectal cancer screening on an individual basis were consecutively enrolled in the study. Out of them, 503 patients (group 1) underwent CTC with rectal tagging, of which 55 had a total of 77 colonic lesions. The remaining 97 patients (group 2) were randomly selected to receive CTC with oral tagging of which 15 had a total of 20 colonic lesions. CTC findings were compared with optical colonoscopy, and per-segment image quality was visually assessed using a semi-quantitative score (1=poor, 2=adequate, 3=excellent). In 70/600 patients (11.7%), CTC was performed twice with both types of tagging over a 5-year follow-up cancer screening program. In this subgroup, patient acceptance was rated via phone interview two weeks after CTC using a semi-quantitative scale (1=poor, 2=fair, 3=average, 4=good, 5=excellent). RESULTS: Mean per-polyp sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of CTC with rectal vs oral tagging were 96.1% (CI95% 85.4÷99.3%) vs 89.4% (CI95% 65.4÷98.1%), 95.3% (CI95% 90.7÷97.8%) vs 95.8% (CI95% 87.6÷98.9%), 86.0% (CI95% 73.6÷93.3) vs 85.0% (CI95% 61.1÷96.0%), and 98.8% (CI95% 95.3÷99.8%) vs 97.2% (CI95% 89.4÷99.5%), respectively (p>0.05). Polyp detection rates were not statistically different between groups 1 and 2 (p>0.05). Overall examination time was significantly shorter with rectal than with oral tagging (18.3±3.5 vs 215.6±10.3 minutes, respectively; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Rectal iodine tagging can be an effective alternative to oral tagging for CTC with the advantages of greater patient acceptance and lower overall examination time.