Sebastiaan Jensch

CT Colonography with Limited Bowel Preparation: Performance Characteristics in an Increased-Risk Population

PURPOSE To prospectively evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) colonography with limited bowel preparation for the depiction of colonic polyps, by using colonoscopy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained. Patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer underwent CT colonography after fecal tagging, which consisted of 80 mL of barium sulfate and 180 mL of diatrizoate meglumine. Bisacodyl was added for stool softening. A radiologist and a research fellow evaluated all data independently by using a primary two-dimensional approach. Discrepant findings for lesions 6 mm or larger in diameter were solved with consensus. Segmental unblinding was performed. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity, per-polyp sensitivity, and number of false-positive findings were found (for lesions > or = 6 mm and > or = 10 mm in diameter). Per-patient sensitivities (blinded colonoscopy vs CT colonography) were tested for significance with McNemar statistics. Interobserver variability was analyzed per segment (prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa values [kappa(p)]). RESULTS One hundred fourteen of 168 patients (105 men, 63 women; mean age, 56 years) had polyps, with 56 polyps 6 mm or larger and 17 polyps 10 mm or larger. Per-patient sensitivities were not significantly different for CT colonography (consensus reading) and colonoscopy (P > or = .070). Sensitivity of CT colonography for patients with lesions 6 mm or larger and 10 mm or larger was 76% and 82%, respectively, and specificity of CT colonography was 79% and 97%, respectively. Blinded colonoscopy depicted 91% (lesions > or = 6 mm) and 88% (lesions > or = 10 mm) of disease in patients. Per-polyp sensitivity for CT colonography was 70% (lesions > or = 6 mm) and 82% (lesions > or = 10 mm). Number of false-positive findings was 42 (lesions > or = 6 mm) and six (lesions > or = 10 mm). kappa(p) Was 0.88 (lesions > or = 6 mm) and 0.96 (lesions > or = 10 mm). CONCLUSION CT colonography with limited bowel preparation has a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 97% for patients with polyps 10 mm or larger.

Image Quality and Patient Acceptance of Four Regimens with Different Amounts of Mild Laxatives for CT Colonography

OBJECTIVE The purpose of our study was to prospectively evaluate image quality and patient acceptance of CT colonography (CTC) with fecal tagging using different levels of catharsis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Forty consecutive increased-risk patients were randomized. Group 1 received orally 20 mg of bisacodyl, group 2 received 30 mg of bisacodyl, group 3 received 20 mg of bisacodyl and 8.2 g of magnesium citrate, and group 4 received 30 mg of bisacodyl and 16.4 g of magnesium citrate. All patients used a 2-day low-fiber diet and received diatrizoate meglumine and barium for fecal tagging. One reviewer blindly scored subjective image quality (fecal tagging, amount of residual feces [liquid or solid], luminal distention, and image readability) on a 5- to 6-point scale using a 2D review technique. The mean and SD of attenuation of tagging were measured as well as the relative SD as a measure of homogeneity. Furthermore, patient acceptance (burden related to diarrhea, abdominal pain, flatulence, and overall burden) was evaluated. Ordinal regression, generalized estimating equations, and parametric and nonparametric tests were used for analysis. RESULTS Image readability was evaluated as good or excellent in all examinations except one in group 2 (nondiagnostic) and two in group 3 (moderate). Group 2 contained more feces than group 4 (p = 0.04). With regard to mean attenuation and homogeneity of tagging, no significant differences were observed between groups. Group 4 experienced more severe diarrhea than groups 1 and 2 and higher overall burden than groups 1 and 3 (p < 0.042). CONCLUSION The mildest preparation with 20 mg of bisacodyl provided good image quality of CTC images. Increasing the amount of laxatives did not improve image quality or tagging characteristics but was associated with a lower patient acceptance.

Performance of radiographers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of radiographers with that of radiologists in the interpretation of CT colonographic images. MATERIALS AND METHODS Four observers (a radiologist, a radiologist in training, and two radiographers) evaluated 145 data sets using a primary 3D approach. The radiographers were part of our CT colonography work group and underwent training that consisted of 20 cases. The reference standard was optical colonoscopy with second-look colonoscopy for discrepant lesions > or = 10 mm in diameter. Mean sensitivities per patient and per polyp stratified for size (any size, > or = 6 mm, and > or = 10 mm) was determined for the radiologists and radiographers. Specificity was determined on a per-patient basis. RESULTS At colonoscopy in 86 of 145 patients, a total of 317 polyps were found (60 polyps > or = 6 mm in 26 patients and 31 polyps > or = 10 mm in 18 patients). No statistically significant differences were found in detection rates between radiologists and radiographers. Sensitivities for patients with a lesion of any size (66% for radiologists vs 65% for radiographers), > or = 6 mm (81% vs 87%), and > or = 10 mm (both 78%) were similar for all observers. On a per-polyp basis, detection rates were equivalent regardless of polyp size (47% vs 40%), for lesions > or = 6 mm (71% vs 65%), and for lesions > or = 10 mm (69% vs 66%). Mean specificities were similar among patients without lesions (31% vs 30%), patients without lesions > or = 6 mm (71% vs 67%), and patients without lesions > or = 10 mm (93% vs 93%). CONCLUSION Radiographers with training in CT colonographic evaluation achieved sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection comparable with that of radiologists. Radiographers can be considered reviewers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images.

Acute Appendicitis on Abdominal MR Images: Training Readers to Improve Diagnostic Accuracy

PURPOSE To determine if training with direct feedback helps to improve the diagnostic performance of inexperienced readers in the detection of appendicitis on magnetic resonance (MR) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS The institutional review board approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement for informed consent. Nine radiologists and eight residents without experience in evaluating MR images for acute abdominal conditions evaluated a training set of images from 100 MR imaging examinations of patients suspected of having appendicitis and received direct feedback after each evaluation. An expert panel made a diagnosis of appendicitis in 45 patients and an alternative diagnosis in 55 patients on the basis of histopathologic examination and follow-up. Readers recorded two diagnoses: the first after viewing images from conventional MR sequences (half-Fourier rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement and true fast imaging with steady-state precession) and the second after viewing diffusion-weighted (DW) MR images. Reader sensitivity and specificity were calculated per set of 25 cases. RESULTS The average reader sensitivity for detecting appendicitis improved significantly after training (0.82 vs 0.92, P = .003); the average specificity improved nonsignificantly (0.82 vs 0.88, P = .10). Sensitivity for radiologists increased from 0.81 in the first set of 25 cases to 0.91 in the last set, and specificity improved from 0.82 to 0.85. For residents, sensitivity increased from 0.82 to 0.94, and specificity increased from 0.82 to 0.91. Sensitivity improved from 0.80 to 0.87 (P < .001) in all readings combined when DW images were read in addition to conventional MR images. CONCLUSION Diagnostic accuracy of inexperienced readers in the evaluation of abdominal MR images for acute appendicitis improved after training with direct feedback, and the addition of DW images improved reader sensitivity.

Accuracy and interobserver agreement between MR-non-expert radiologists and MR-experts in reading MRI for suspected appendicitis

OBJECTIVE To compare accuracy and interobserver agreement between radiologists with limited experience in the evaluation of abdominal MRI (non-experts), and radiologists with longer MR reading experience (experts), in reading MRI in patients with suspected appendicitis. METHODS MR imaging was performed in 223 adult patients with suspected appendicitis and read independently by two members of a team of eight MR-inexperienced radiologists, who were trained with 100 MR examinations previous to this study (non-expert reading). Expert reading was performed by two radiologists with a larger abdominal MR experience (>500 examinations) in consensus. A final diagnosis was assigned after three months based on all available information, except MRI findings. We estimated MRI sensitivity and specificity for appendicitis and for all urgent diagnoses separately. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using kappa statistics. RESULTS Urgent diagnoses were assigned to 147 of 223 patients; 117 had appendicitis. Sensitivity for appendicitis was 0.89 by MR-non-expert radiologists and 0.97 in MR-expert reading (p=0.01). Specificity was 0.83 for MR-non-experts versus 0.93 for MR-expert reading (p=0.002). MR-experts and MR-non-experts agreed on appendicitis in 89% of cases (kappa 0.78). Accuracy in detecting urgent diagnoses was significantly lower in MR-non-experts compared to MR-expert reading: sensitivity 0.84 versus 0.95 (p<0.001) and specificity 0.71 versus 0.82 (p=0.03), respectively. Agreement on urgent diagnoses was 83% (kappa 0.63). CONCLUSION MR-non-experts have sufficient sensitivity in reading MRI in patients with suspected appendicitis, with good agreement with MR-expert reading, but accuracy of MR-expert reading was higher.

CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers

The purpose of this study was to investigate if experienced readers differ when matching polyps shown by both CT colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) and to explore the reasons for discrepancy. Twenty-eight CTC cases with corresponding OC were presented to eight experienced CTC readers. Cases represented a broad spectrum of findings, not completely fulfilling typical matching criteria. In 21 cases there was a single polyp on CTC and OC; in seven there were multiple polyps. Agreement between readers for matching was analyzed. For the 21 single-polyp cases, the number of correct matches per reader varied from 13 to 19. Almost complete agreement between readers was observed in 15 cases (71%), but substantial discrepancy was found for the remaining six (29%) probably due to large perceived differences in polyp size between CT and OC. Readers were able to match between 27 (71%) and 35 (92%) of the 38 CTC detected polyps in the seven cases with multiple polyps. Experienced CTC readers agree to a considerable extent when matching polyps between CTC and subsequent OC, but non-negligible disagreement exists.

Feasibility of using automated insufflated carbon dioxide (CO2) for luminal distension in 3.0 T MR colonography

PURPOSE Primary aim of our study was to prospectively evaluate the feasibility of automated carbon dioxide (CO(2)) delivery as luminal distending agent in 3.0T MR colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS Rectally insufflated CO(2) was evaluated in four groups with different bowel preparation (A-D). Bowel preparation regimes were: gadolinium-based tagging (A), bowel purgation (B), barium-based tagging (C) and iodine-based tagging (D). Supine (3D)T1w-FFE and (2D)T2w-SSFSE series were acquired. Each colon was divided into six segments (cecum S1-rectum S6). Two observers independently assessed the presence of artefacts, diagnostic confidence and segmental colonic distension. Also characteristics of the residual stool (presence, composition and signal-intensity) were assessed per segment. Discomfort was assessed with questionnaires. RESULTS Fourteen healthy subjects were included. Colonic distension by means of rectally insufflated CO(2) was not associated with susceptibility artefacts. Overall image quality was affected by the presence of bowel motion-related artefacts: none of the segments in 3DT1w-series and 10/84 (12%) colon segments in 2DT2w-series were rated artefact-free by both observers. Diagnostic confidence ratings were superior for the 2DT2w-SSFSE series. Overall bowel distension was rated adequate to optimal in 312/336 (93%) colon segments. CONCLUSION MR colonography at 3.0T using carbon dioxide (CO(2)) for colonic distension is technically feasible. The presence of intraluminal CO(2) did not result in susceptibility artefacts, although overall image quality was influenced by artefacts.

Magnetic resonance colonography with automated carbon dioxide insufflation: Diagnostic accuracy and distension

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the diagnostic performance of MR colonography using automated carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation for colonic distension, with colonoscopy serving as the reference standard. METHODS Ninety-eight symptomatic patients underwent MR colonography with faecal tagging and automated CO2 insufflation. Three readers (one expert (reader 1), and two less experienced (readers 2 and 3)) evaluated the images for the presence of colorectal lesions. Bowel distension was evaluated on a 4-point scale. Results were verified with colonoscopy and histopathological analysis. RESULTS Per-patient sensitivity for lesions ≥10mm was 91.7% (11 of 12) (reader 1), 75.0% (9 of 12) (reader 2), and 75% (9 of 12) (reader 3). Specificity was 96.5% (82 of 85) (reader 1), 97.7% (83 of 85) (reader 2), 95.3% (81 of 85) (reader 3). Per-patient sensitivity for lesions ≥6mm was 85.7% (18 of 21) (reader 1), 57.1% (12 of 21) (reader 2), and 57.1% (12 of 21) (reader 3). Specificity was 86.8% (66 of 76), 98.7% (75 of 76), 90.8% (69 of 76), respectively. Per-patient sensitivity for advanced neoplasia of ≥10mm and ≥6mm was 88.9% (8 of 9) for all readers. Specificity for ≥10mm and ≥6mm was 98.9% (87 of 88) (reader 1), 97.7% (86 of 88) (reader 2), 96.6% (85 of 88) (reader 3). 94.4% of the colon segments were adequate to optimal distended with dual positioning. CONCLUSION MR colonography can accurately detect lesions ≥10mm, and advanced neoplasia ≥6mm. Sufficient distension was achieved using automated CO2 insufflation for colonic distension in MR colonography.

Diagnostic performance of radiographers as compared to radiologists in magnetic resonance colonography.

PURPOSE To evaluate the diagnostic performance of radiographers compared to radiologists in the detection of colorectal lesions in MR colonography. MATERIAL AND METHODS 159 patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer were included. Four different experienced observers, one MR radiologist, one radiologist in training and two radiographers evaluated all MR colonography examinations. The protocol included T1-weighted and T2-weighted sequences in prone and supine position. Colonoscopy was used as reference standard. Mean sensitivity rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined on a per-patient and per-polyp basis, segmented by size (>or= 6mm and >or= 10mm). Specificity was calculated on a per-patient basis. The McNemar and chi-square (chi(2)) test was used to determine significant differences. RESULTS At colonoscopy 74 patients (47%) had normal findings; 23 patients had 40 polyps with a size > or = 6mm. In 10 patients at least 1 polyp >or= 10mm was found (20 polyps in total). Similar sensitivities for patients with lesions >or= 10mm were found for radiologists and radiographers (65% (95%CI: 44-86%) vs. 50% (95%CI: 28-72%)) (p=n.s.). For lesions >or=10mm combined per-patient specificity for radiologists and radiographers was 96% (95%CI: 94-98%) and 73% (95%CI: 68-79%) (p<0.0001). Combined per-patient sensitivity for lesions >or=6mm differed significantly between both groups of observers (57% (95%CI: 42-71%) vs. 33% (95%CI: 19-46%)) (p=0.03). CONCLUSION Radiographers have comparable sensitivity but lower specificity relative to radiologists in the detection of colorectal lesions >or= 10mm at MR colonography. Adequate training in evaluating MR colonography is necessary, especially for readers with no prior experience with colonography.