Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer: a diagnostic performance study

Abstract

Background: Colonoscopy is the reference standard for the detection of colorectal cancer but it is an invasive technique and has the risk of bowel perforation and bleeding. Unlike colonoscopy, sedation is not required in computed tomography colonography and requires additional reassurance endoscopy. The objectives of the study were to compare the diagnostic performance of computed tomography colonography against colonoscopy for a diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Methods: Data regarding any polyp ≥10 mm diameter (ø) and < 10 mm ø but suspicious polyps of computed tomography colonography (n = 318), colonoscopy (n = 318), and surgical pathology (n = 77) for symptomatic colorectal cancer patients were collected and analyzed. Lesion ulceration, extramural invasion, and/ or lesion shouldering was considered as a suspicious polyp. Beneficial scores for decision making of curative surgeries were evaluated for each modality. The cost of diagnosis of colorectal cancer was also evaluated. Results: Either of diagnosis showed polyps ≥10 mm ø in 27 patients and polyps of 50 patients were < 10 mm ø but suspicious. Therefore, a total of 77 patients were subjected to surgery. With respect to surgical pathology, sensitivities for computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy were 0.961 and 0.831. For detection of ≥10 mm ø polyp, benefit score for computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy were 0-0.906 diagnostic confidence and 0.035-0.5 diagnostic confidence. For polyps, ≥ 10 mm ø but not too many large polyps, colonoscopy had the risk of underdiagnosis. For < 10 mm ø but suspicious polyps, < 0.6 mm ø and < 2.2 mm polyps could not be detected by computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy, respectively. The computed tomographic colonography had less cost than colonoscopy (1345 ± 135 ¥/ patient vs. 1715 ± 241 ¥/ patient, p < 0.0001) for diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Conclusion: Computed tomographic colonography would be a non-inferior alternative than colonoscopy for a diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Level of evidence: III.

Pre-colectomy location and TNM staging of colon cancer by the computed tomography colonography: a diagnostic performance study

“…Beneficial score analyses to perform colectomies for CTC and colonoscopy were evaluated as per Eq. 4 [ 19 ]. The higher the beneficial score, the easier will be the colectomy at a low level of diagnostic confidence for the colorectal surgeons.…”

Colorectal cancer screening and prevention: A brief review of the current guidelines and modalities

“…CT colonography of course does expose the patient to radiation, and other concerns include limited detection of sub centimeter polyps, and it only providing imaging rather than removal or biopsy of lesions. Extra-colonic findings are common however, recent studies have found it to be more cost effective and a reasonable alternative to colonoscopy in asymptomatic and average risk patients [32][33][34].…”

Colon Cancer Screening Methods: 2023 Update

“…It has demonstrated a high degree of accuracy and specificity, especially for polyps over 10 cm. For those polyps smaller than 10 cm, it shows good specificity if the polyps have other suspicious characteristics [ 59 ]. The cost of CTCs was found to be less than that of colonoscopies, which is consistent with the findings of the SIGGAR trials, which compared CTC and conventional colonoscopies in 21 national health service hospitals [ 60 ].…”