Computed tomographic (CT) colonography continues to evolve rapidly. Advances in scanning and display technologies, encouraging performance data, and increased utilization necessitate clarification and standardization of results reporting in CT colonography. There are several reasons for this. First and most important, standardized reporting can better assist patients and referring physi-cians in making management decisions on the basis of the results of CT colonography. The precedent of the mammography Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, or BI-RADS, schema is a strong incentive to provide a similar structure for CT colonography. Second, as more examinations are performed, the likelihood increases that radiologists interpreting results of a CT colonography examination performed at one center will require comparison to examination results and reports generated at other sites. As has been seen with mammography, a common set of terms facilitates this kind of assessment (1). Third, as utilization of CT colonography increases, our colleagues in other medical specialties, the various third-party payers, and the general public will insist on larger-scale evaluations of examination performance, examination quality, patient outcome, and cost. Here again, a common approach to interpretation will assist us in meeting these demands. Finally, a common scheme for reporting facilitates structured reporting.The purpose of this communication is to facilitate clear and consistent communication of CT colonography results. The authors-an ad hoc group of investigators active in the area of CT colonogra-

In this series, the patient discomfort scores were significantly improved with tagging preparations for CT colonography. Nonionic iodinated contrast material in conjunction with a hyperosmotic laxative (magnesium citrate) was associated with the best subjective and numerical indices of readability.

Computed tomographic colonography was accurate in detecting adenomas 10 mm or larger but less so for smaller lesions. Patient experience was better with laxative-free CTC. These results suggest a possible role for laxative-free CTC as an alternate screening method.

No abstract

The authors evaluated a computed tomography (CT) colonographic technique with a combination of preexamination orally ingested positive contrast material and postacquisition image processing to subtract out the ingested opacified bowel contents. With this technique, rigorous physical purging of the bowel was not necessary before structural examination of the colon. With images obtained in 20 patients, two readers were able to correctly identify the majority of polyps confirmed at colonoscopy. Their performance for detection of lesions larger than 1 cm was similar to that with conventional CT colonography.