CT colonography without cathartic preparation: Feasibility study

Matthew R Callstrom, C. Daniel Johnson, Joel Garland Fletcher, Judd E. Reed, David A. Ahlquist, W. Scott Harmsen, Kevin Tait, Lynn A. Wilson, Kay E. Corcoran

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

227 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate methods for contrast material labeling of stool in the unprepared Colon for computed tomographic (CT) colonography and to determine their Sensitivity for polyp detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six patients with suspected or known polyps were assigned to five groups. Two to seven doses of 225 mL of dilute contrast material were orally administered during 24 of 48 hours. Transverse CT images were assessed for effectiveness of stool labeling. Colonoscopy was performed in all patients and was the standard. Two radiologists blinded to prior imaging and colonoscopic results assessed polyp detection. RESULTS: For each group, average stool labeling scores and ranges were as follows: 24 hour two dose, 16% and 8%-21%; 24.hour five dose, 53% and 27%-66%; 48 hour four dose, 38% and 22%-48%; 48 hour six dose, 68% and 54%-77%; and 48 hour seven dose, 88% and 75%-98%. Sensitivity for the two radiologists for the identification of patients with polyps 1 cm or larger for each group was as follows: 24 hour two dose, 50% and 67%; 24 hour five dose, 100% and 100%; 48 hour four dose, 58% and 75%; 48 hour six dose, 56% and 67%; and 48 hour seven dose, 100% and 80%. CONCLUSION: ingestion of contrast material adequately labels stool for lesion identification; a 48-hour lead time and multiple doses of contrast material are required. Sensitivity for polyp detection in patients with adequate stool labeling approaches the sensitivity for polyp detection in prepared colons.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)693-698
Number of pages6
JournalRadiology
Volume219
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jun 2001

Fingerprint

Cathartics
Computed Tomographic Colonography
Feasibility Studies
Polyps
Contrast Media
Colon
Colonoscopy
Eating

Keywords

  • 75.12115
  • 75.12143
  • 75.1283
  • 75.12883
  • 75.30 Computed tomography (CT)
  • Colon
  • Colon neoplasms
  • Contrast media
  • CT

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Callstrom, M. R., Johnson, C. D., Fletcher, J. G., Reed, J. E., Ahlquist, D. A., Harmsen, W. S., ... Corcoran, K. E. (2001). CT colonography without cathartic preparation: Feasibility study. Radiology, 219(3), 693-698.

CT colonography without cathartic preparation : Feasibility study. / Callstrom, Matthew R; Johnson, C. Daniel; Fletcher, Joel Garland; Reed, Judd E.; Ahlquist, David A.; Harmsen, W. Scott; Tait, Kevin; Wilson, Lynn A.; Corcoran, Kay E.

In: Radiology, Vol. 219, No. 3, 06.2001, p. 693-698.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Callstrom, MR, Johnson, CD, Fletcher, JG, Reed, JE, Ahlquist, DA, Harmsen, WS, Tait, K, Wilson, LA & Corcoran, KE 2001, 'CT colonography without cathartic preparation: Feasibility study', Radiology, vol. 219, no. 3, pp. 693-698.
Callstrom, Matthew R ; Johnson, C. Daniel ; Fletcher, Joel Garland ; Reed, Judd E. ; Ahlquist, David A. ; Harmsen, W. Scott ; Tait, Kevin ; Wilson, Lynn A. ; Corcoran, Kay E. / CT colonography without cathartic preparation : Feasibility study. In: Radiology. 2001 ; Vol. 219, No. 3. pp. 693-698.
@article{81ef060b2dae44bd8bfa32f51249ddc4,
title = "CT colonography without cathartic preparation: Feasibility study",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To evaluate methods for contrast material labeling of stool in the unprepared Colon for computed tomographic (CT) colonography and to determine their Sensitivity for polyp detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six patients with suspected or known polyps were assigned to five groups. Two to seven doses of 225 mL of dilute contrast material were orally administered during 24 of 48 hours. Transverse CT images were assessed for effectiveness of stool labeling. Colonoscopy was performed in all patients and was the standard. Two radiologists blinded to prior imaging and colonoscopic results assessed polyp detection. RESULTS: For each group, average stool labeling scores and ranges were as follows: 24 hour two dose, 16{\%} and 8{\%}-21{\%}; 24.hour five dose, 53{\%} and 27{\%}-66{\%}; 48 hour four dose, 38{\%} and 22{\%}-48{\%}; 48 hour six dose, 68{\%} and 54{\%}-77{\%}; and 48 hour seven dose, 88{\%} and 75{\%}-98{\%}. Sensitivity for the two radiologists for the identification of patients with polyps 1 cm or larger for each group was as follows: 24 hour two dose, 50{\%} and 67{\%}; 24 hour five dose, 100{\%} and 100{\%}; 48 hour four dose, 58{\%} and 75{\%}; 48 hour six dose, 56{\%} and 67{\%}; and 48 hour seven dose, 100{\%} and 80{\%}. CONCLUSION: ingestion of contrast material adequately labels stool for lesion identification; a 48-hour lead time and multiple doses of contrast material are required. Sensitivity for polyp detection in patients with adequate stool labeling approaches the sensitivity for polyp detection in prepared colons.",
keywords = "75.12115, 75.12143, 75.1283, 75.12883, 75.30 Computed tomography (CT), Colon, Colon neoplasms, Contrast media, CT",
author = "Callstrom, {Matthew R} and Johnson, {C. Daniel} and Fletcher, {Joel Garland} and Reed, {Judd E.} and Ahlquist, {David A.} and Harmsen, {W. Scott} and Kevin Tait and Wilson, {Lynn A.} and Corcoran, {Kay E.}",
year = "2001",
month = "6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "219",
pages = "693--698",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - CT colonography without cathartic preparation

T2 - Feasibility study

AU - Callstrom, Matthew R

AU - Johnson, C. Daniel

AU - Fletcher, Joel Garland

AU - Reed, Judd E.

AU - Ahlquist, David A.

AU - Harmsen, W. Scott

AU - Tait, Kevin

AU - Wilson, Lynn A.

AU - Corcoran, Kay E.

PY - 2001/6

Y1 - 2001/6

N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate methods for contrast material labeling of stool in the unprepared Colon for computed tomographic (CT) colonography and to determine their Sensitivity for polyp detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six patients with suspected or known polyps were assigned to five groups. Two to seven doses of 225 mL of dilute contrast material were orally administered during 24 of 48 hours. Transverse CT images were assessed for effectiveness of stool labeling. Colonoscopy was performed in all patients and was the standard. Two radiologists blinded to prior imaging and colonoscopic results assessed polyp detection. RESULTS: For each group, average stool labeling scores and ranges were as follows: 24 hour two dose, 16% and 8%-21%; 24.hour five dose, 53% and 27%-66%; 48 hour four dose, 38% and 22%-48%; 48 hour six dose, 68% and 54%-77%; and 48 hour seven dose, 88% and 75%-98%. Sensitivity for the two radiologists for the identification of patients with polyps 1 cm or larger for each group was as follows: 24 hour two dose, 50% and 67%; 24 hour five dose, 100% and 100%; 48 hour four dose, 58% and 75%; 48 hour six dose, 56% and 67%; and 48 hour seven dose, 100% and 80%. CONCLUSION: ingestion of contrast material adequately labels stool for lesion identification; a 48-hour lead time and multiple doses of contrast material are required. Sensitivity for polyp detection in patients with adequate stool labeling approaches the sensitivity for polyp detection in prepared colons.

AB - PURPOSE: To evaluate methods for contrast material labeling of stool in the unprepared Colon for computed tomographic (CT) colonography and to determine their Sensitivity for polyp detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six patients with suspected or known polyps were assigned to five groups. Two to seven doses of 225 mL of dilute contrast material were orally administered during 24 of 48 hours. Transverse CT images were assessed for effectiveness of stool labeling. Colonoscopy was performed in all patients and was the standard. Two radiologists blinded to prior imaging and colonoscopic results assessed polyp detection. RESULTS: For each group, average stool labeling scores and ranges were as follows: 24 hour two dose, 16% and 8%-21%; 24.hour five dose, 53% and 27%-66%; 48 hour four dose, 38% and 22%-48%; 48 hour six dose, 68% and 54%-77%; and 48 hour seven dose, 88% and 75%-98%. Sensitivity for the two radiologists for the identification of patients with polyps 1 cm or larger for each group was as follows: 24 hour two dose, 50% and 67%; 24 hour five dose, 100% and 100%; 48 hour four dose, 58% and 75%; 48 hour six dose, 56% and 67%; and 48 hour seven dose, 100% and 80%. CONCLUSION: ingestion of contrast material adequately labels stool for lesion identification; a 48-hour lead time and multiple doses of contrast material are required. Sensitivity for polyp detection in patients with adequate stool labeling approaches the sensitivity for polyp detection in prepared colons.

KW - 75.12115

KW - 75.12143

KW - 75.1283

KW - 75.12883

KW - 75.30 Computed tomography (CT)

KW - Colon

KW - Colon neoplasms

KW - Contrast media

KW - CT

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034996772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034996772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11376256

AN - SCOPUS:0034996772

VL - 219

SP - 693

EP - 698

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 3

ER -