Search

Background: This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of total tumor volume (TTV) for early recurrence (within 6 months) and overall survival (OS) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), treated with induction systemic therapy followed by complete local treatment., Methods: Patients with initially unresectable CRLM from the multicenter randomized phase 3 CAIRO5 trial (NCT02162563) who received induction systemic therapy followed by local treatment were included. Baseline TTV and change in TTV as response to systemic therapy were calculated using the CT scan before and the first after systemic treatment, and were assessed for their added prognostic value. The findings were validated in an external cohort of patients treated at a tertiary center., Results: In total, 215 CAIRO5 patients were included. Baseline TTV and absolute change in TTV were significantly associated with early recurrence (P = 0.005 and P = 0.040, respectively) and OS in multivariable analyses (P = 0.024 and P = 0.006, respectively), whereas RECIST1.1 was not prognostic for early recurrence (P = 0.88) and OS (P = 0.35). In the validation cohort (n = 85), baseline TTV and absolute change in TTV remained prognostic for early recurrence (P = 0.041 and P = 0.021, respectively) and OS in multivariable analyses (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.012, respectively), and showed added prognostic value over conventional clinicopathological variables (increase C-statistic, 0.06; 95 % CI, 0.02 to 0.14; P = 0.008)., Conclusion: Total tumor volume is strongly prognostic for early recurrence and OS in patients who underwent complete local treatment of initially unresectable CRLM, both in the CAIRO5 trial and the validation cohort. In contrast, RECIST1.1 did not show prognostic value for neither early recurrence nor OS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: C.J.A.P. has an advisory role for Nordic Pharma; SAS Analytics paid for traveling expenses G. Kazemier. This funding is not related to the current research. The remaining authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Guidelines are inconclusive on whether contrast-enhanced MRI using gadoxetic acid and diffusion-weighted imaging should be added routinely to CT in the investigation of patients with colorectal liver metastases who are scheduled for curative liver resection or thermal ablation, or both. Although contrast-enhanced MRI is reportedly superior than contrast-enhanced CT in the detection and characterisation of colorectal liver metastases, its effect on clinical patient management is unknown. We aimed to assess the clinical effect of an additional liver contrast-enhanced MRI on local treatment plan in patients with colorectal liver metastases amenable to local treatment, based on contrast-enhanced CT., Methods: We did an international, multicentre, prospective, incremental diagnostic accuracy trial in 14 liver surgery centres in the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and Italy. Participants were aged 18 years or older with histological proof of colorectal cancer, a WHO performance status score of 0-4, and primary or recurrent colorectal liver metastases, who were scheduled for local therapy based on contrast-enhanced CT. All patients had contrast-enhanced CT and liver contrast-enhanced MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging and gadoxetic acid as a contrast agent before undergoing local therapy. The primary outcome was change in the local clinical treatment plan (decided by the individual clinics) on the basis of liver contrast-enhanced MRI findings, analysed in the intention-to-image population. The minimal clinically important difference in the proportion of patients who would have change in their local treatment plan due to an additional liver contrast-enhanced MRI was 10%. This study is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, NL8039., Findings: Between Dec 17, 2019, and July 31, 2021, 325 patients with colorectal liver metastases were assessed for eligibility. 298 patients were enrolled and included in the intention-to-treat population, including 177 males (59%) and 121 females (41%) with planned local therapy based on contrast-enhanced CT. A change in the local treatment plan based on liver contrast-enhanced MRI findings was observed in 92 (31%; 95% CI 26-36) of 298 patients. Changes were made for 40 patients (13%) requiring more extensive local therapy, 11 patients (4%) requiring less extensive local therapy, and 34 patients (11%) in whom the indication for curative-intent local therapy was revoked, including 26 patients (9%) with too extensive disease and eight patients (3%) with benign lesions on liver contrast-enhanced MRI (confirmed by a median follow-up of 21·0 months [IQR 17·5-24·0])., Interpretation: Liver contrast-enhanced MRI should be considered in all patients scheduled for local treatment for colorectal liver metastases on the basis of contrast-enhanced CT imaging., Funding: The Dutch Cancer Society and Bayer AG - Pharmaceuticals., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BE received honoraria from Medtronic for lectures. KH has a leadership role in the Dutch Colorectal Cancer group. DJL received honoraria from Intuitive surgical. MMa received support for travel to attend the following courses where she gave lectures: ECIO 2023, ESGAR Liver Imaging workshop, and Alimentary tract cancer course New York 2023. MMe received grants from Medtronic–Covidien, Johnson & Johnson, Immunophotonics, and Angiodynamics. MMe also received consulting fees from Angiodynamics and Medtronic–Covidien; honoraria from Medtronic–Covidien, Johnson & Johnson, and Angiodynamics; and support for attending meetings from Angiodynamics. MMe is participating in the Data Safety and Monitoring Board of the Combining Hepatic Percutaneous Perfusion with Ipilimumab plus Nivolumab in advanced uveal melanoma trial and had leadership or fiduciary roles in the Society of Interventional Oncology, CIRSE & ECIO, and CVIR. ÅAF received honoraria from Bayer AG, Olympus Healthcare, and Siemens Healthineers. JS received funding from the Dutch Cancer Society (grant number 11916) and is president-elect of the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We developed models for tumor segmentation to automate the assessment of total tumor volume (TTV) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM)., Methods: In this prospective cohort study, pre- and post-systemic treatment computed tomography (CT) scans of 259 patients with initially unresectable CRLM of the CAIRO5 trial (NCT02162563) were included. In total, 595 CT scans comprising 8,959 CRLM were divided into training (73%), validation (6.5%), and test sets (21%). Deep learning models were trained with ground truth segmentations of the liver and CRLM. TTV was calculated based on the CRLM segmentations. An external validation cohort was included, comprising 72 preoperative CT scans of patients with 112 resectable CRLM. Image segmentation evaluation metrics and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated., Results: In the test set (122 CT scans), the autosegmentation models showed a global Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.96 (liver) and 0.86 (CRLM). The corresponding median per-case DSC was 0.96 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.95-0.96) and 0.80 (IQR 0.67-0.87). For tumor segmentation, the intersection-over-union, precision, and recall were 0.75, 0.89, and 0.84, respectively. An excellent agreement was observed between the reference and automatically computed TTV for the test set (ICC 0.98) and external validation cohort (ICC 0.98). In the external validation, the global DSC was 0.82 and the median per-case DSC was 0.60 (IQR 0.29-0.76) for tumor segmentation., Conclusions: Deep learning autosegmentation models were able to segment the liver and CRLM automatically and accurately in patients with initially unresectable CRLM, enabling automatic TTV assessment in such patients., Relevance Statement: Automatic segmentation enables the assessment of total tumor volume in patients with colorectal liver metastases, with a high potential of decreasing radiologist's workload and increasing accuracy and consistency., Key Points: • Tumor response evaluation is time-consuming, manually performed, and ignores total tumor volume. • Automatic models can accurately segment tumors in patients with colorectal liver metastases. • Total tumor volume can be accurately calculated based on automatic segmentations., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose To evaluate interobserver variability in the morphologic tumor response assessment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) managed with systemic therapy and to assess the relation of morphologic response with gene mutation status, targeted therapy, and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 measurements. Materials and Methods Participants with initially unresectable CRLM receiving different systemic therapy regimens from the randomized, controlled CAIRO5 trial (NCT02162563) were included in this prospective imaging study. Three radiologists independently assessed morphologic tumor response on baseline and first follow-up CT scans according to previously published criteria. Two additional radiologists evaluated disagreement cases. Interobserver agreement was calculated by using Fleiss κ. On the basis of the majority of individual radiologic assessments, the final morphologic tumor response was determined. Finally, the relation of morphologic tumor response and clinical prognostic parameters was assessed. Results In total, 153 participants (median age, 63 years [IQR, 56-71]; 101 men) with 306 CT scans comprising 2192 CRLM were included. Morphologic assessment performed by the three radiologists yielded 86 (56%) agreement cases and 67 (44%) disagreement cases (including four major disagreement cases). Overall interobserver agreement between the panel radiologists on morphology groups and morphologic response categories was moderate (κ = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.58 and κ = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.60). Optimal morphologic response was particularly observed in patients treated with bevacizumab ( P = .001) and in patients with RAS/BRAF mutation ( P = .04). No evidence of a relationship between RECIST 1.1 and morphologic response was found ( P = .61). Conclusion Morphologic tumor response assessment following systemic therapy in participants with CRLM demonstrated considerable interobserver variability. Keywords: Tumor Response, Observer Performance, CT, Liver, Metastases, Oncology, Abdomen/Gastrointestinal Clinical trial registration no. NCT02162563 Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2022.

Background: Abdominal computed tomography (CT) is the standard imaging method for patients with suspected colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in the diagnostic workup for surgery or thermal ablation. Diffusion-weighted and gadoxetic-acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the liver is increasingly used to improve the detection rate and characterization of liver lesions. MRI is superior in detection and characterization of CRLM as compared to CT. However, it is unknown how MRI actually impacts patient management. The primary aim of the CAMINO study is to evaluate whether MRI has sufficient clinical added value to be routinely added to CT in the staging of CRLM. The secondary objective is to identify subgroups who benefit the most from additional MRI., Methods: In this international multicentre prospective incremental diagnostic accuracy study, 298 patients with primary or recurrent CRLM scheduled for curative liver resection or thermal ablation based on CT staging will be enrolled from 17 centres across the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and Italy. All study participants will undergo CT and diffusion-weighted and gadoxetic-acid enhanced MRI prior to local therapy. The local multidisciplinary team will provide two local therapy plans: first, based on CT-staging and second, based on both CT and MRI. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of clinically significant CRLM (CS-CRLM) detected by MRI not visible on CT. CS-CRLM are defined as liver lesions leading to a change in local therapeutical management. If MRI detects new CRLM in segments which would have been resected in the original operative plan, these are not considered CS-CRLM. It is hypothesized that MRI will lead to the detection of CS-CRLM in ≥10% of patients which is considered the minimal clinically important difference. Furthermore, a prediction model will be developed using multivariable logistic regression modelling to evaluate the predictive value of patient, tumor and procedural variables on finding CS-CRLM on MRI., Discussion: The CAMINO study will clarify the clinical added value of MRI to CT in patients with CRLM scheduled for local therapy. This study will provide the evidence required for the implementation of additional MRI in the routine work-up of patients with primary and recurrent CRLM for local therapy., Trial Registration: The CAMINO study was registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register under number NL8039 on September 20th 2019., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Main Recommendations: 1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence.7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence.8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6-9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Source and scope This is an update of the 2014-15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

1: ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 - 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence., Competing Interests: D. Burling provides unpaid support to the colon cancer charity, 40tude (not as trustee or officer). E. Dekker has received consultancy honoraria from Fujifilm, Olympus, Tillots, GI Supply, and CPP-FAP, and speakers’ fees from Olympus, Roche and GI Supply; she has endoscopic equipment on loan and receives a research grant from Fujifilm; she is on the supervisory board for eNose. R. Eliakim receives a lecture fee and grant support from Medtronic (from 2018 ongoing). I. Fernandez-Urien has provided paid consultancy to Medtronic (2019 – 2020). J.E. van Hooft has received lecture fees from Medtronics (from 2014 to 2015 and 2019) and Cook Medical (2019), and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2014 – 2017); her department has received research grants from Cook Medical (2014 – 2019) and Abbott (2014 – 2017). M.F. Kaminski provides speaking, teaching, and consultancy services to Olympus (from 2017 ongoing), and speaking and teaching services to Fujifilm, from whom he has equipment on loan (from 2019 ongoing). A. Koulaouzidis received travel support for CEGS meetings from the Jinshan Group (2018, 2019); his department was supported by Ankon with an advisory meeting (June 2019); he has received research support from Given Imaging (2010 – 2011). M.C.W. Spaander receives research support from Medtronic (from 2016 ongoing). C. Spada provides consultancy to Medtronic (from 2016 ongoing). D. Bellini, G. Cappello, C. Carretero, M. de Haan, C. Hassan, A. Laghi, P. Lefere, D. McNamara, T. Mang, S.M. Milluzzo, M. Morrin, E. Neri, S. Pecere, M. Pioche, A. Plumb, D. Regge, E. Rondonotti, J. Stoker, and S. Taylor declare that they have no conflicts of interest. ESGAR and ESGE covered costs for travel expenses. ESGAR and ESGE did not influence the content of this Guideline., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Magnetic resonance colonography with its high tissue contrast and without the use of ionizing radiation was designed as a minimally invasive screening tool for colorectal cancer and its precursors. Nonetheless, heterogeneous data on diagnostic performance and patient burden have hindered its use in screening. This article provides an overview on the status and potential of magnetic resonance colonography in the setting of detection and screening of colorectal cancer and its precursors., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose To compare the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and colonoscopy screening by using data on unit costs and participation rates from a randomized controlled screening trial in a dedicated screening setting. Materials and Methods Observed participation rates and screening costs from the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening, or COCOS, trial were used in a microsimulation model to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with colonoscopy and CT colonography screening. For both tests, the authors determined optimal age range and screening interval combinations assuming a 100% participation rate. Assuming observed participation for these combinations, the cost-effectiveness of both tests was compared. Extracolonic findings were not included because long-term follow-up data are lacking. Results The participation rates for colonoscopy and CT colonography were 21.5% (1276 of 5924 invitees) and 33.6% (982 of 2920 invitees), respectively. Colonoscopy was more cost-effective in the screening strategies with one or two lifetime screenings, whereas CT colonography was more cost-effective in strategies with more lifetime screenings. CT colonography was the preferred test for willingness-to-pay-thresholds of €3200 per QALY gained and higher, which is lower than the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000. With equal participation, colonoscopy was the preferred test independent of willingness-to-pay thresholds. The findings were robust for most of the sensitivity analyses, except with regard to relative screening costs and subsequent participation. Conclusion Because of the higher participation rates, CT colonography screening for colorectal cancer is more cost-effective than colonoscopy screening. The implementation of CT colonography screening requires previous satisfactory resolution to the question as to how best to deal with extracolonic findings. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Objective: Imaging may be promising for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, since it has test characteristics comparable with colonoscopy but is less invasive. We aimed to assess the potential of CT colonography (CTC) and MR colonography (MRC) in terms of (cost-effectiveness) using the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer model., Methods: We compared several CTC and MRC strategies with 5- or 10-yearly screening intervals with no screening, 10-yearly colonoscopy screening and biennial faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. We assumed trial-based participation rates in the base-case analyses and varied the rates in sensitivity analyses. Incremental lifetime costs and health effects were estimated from a healthcare perspective., Results: The health gain of CTC and MRC was similar and ranged from 0.031 to 0.048 life-year gained compared with no screening, for 2-5 screening rounds. Lifetime costs per person for MRC strategies were €60-110 higher than those for CTC strategies with an equal number of screening rounds. All imaging-based strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. FIT screening was the dominant screening strategy, leading to most LYG and highest cost-savings. Compared with three rounds of colonoscopy screening, CTC with five rounds was found to be cost-effective in an incremental analysis of imaging strategies. Assumptions on screening participation have a major influence on the ordering of strategies in terms of costs and effects., Conclusion: CTC and MRC have potential for CRC screening, compared with no screening and compared with three rounds of 10-yearly colonoscopy screening. When taking FIT screening as the reference, imaging is not cost-effective. Participation is an important driver of effectiveness and cost estimates., Advances in Knowledge: This is the first study to assess the cost-effectiveness of MRC screening for CRC.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. The introduction of CRC screening programmes using stool tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy, have been shown to reduce CRC-related mortality substantially. In several European countries, population-based CRC screening programmes are ongoing or being rolled out. Stool tests like faecal occult blood testing are non-invasive and simple to perform, but are primarily designed to detect early invasive cancer. More invasive tests like colonoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) aim at accurately detecting both CRC and cancer precursors, thus providing for cancer prevention. This review focuses on the accuracy, acceptance and safety of CTC as a CRC screening technique and on the current position of CTC in organised population screening. Based on the detection characteristics and acceptability of CTC screening, it might be a viable screening test. The potential disadvantage of radiation exposure is probably overemphasised, especially with newer technology. At this time-point, it is not entirely clear whether the detection of extracolonic findings at CTC is of net benefit and is cost effective, but with responsible handling, this may be the case. Future efforts will seek to further improve the technique, refine appropriate diagnostic algorithms and study cost-effectiveness., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objectives: To evaluate patient burden and preferences for MR colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation in comparison to conventional colonoscopy., Methods: Symptomatic patients were consecutively recruited to undergo MR colonography with automated carbon dioxide insufflation and a limited bowel preparation followed within four weeks by colonoscopy with a standard bowel cleansing preparation. Four questionnaires regarding burden (on a five-point scale) and preferences (on a seven-point scale) were addressed after MR colonography and colonoscopy and five weeks after colonoscopy., Results: Ninety-nine patients (47 men, 52 women; mean age 62.3, SD 8.7) were included. None of the patients experienced severe or extreme burden from the MR colonography bowel preparation compared to 31.5% of the patients for the colonoscopy bowel preparation. Colonoscopy was rated more burdensome (25.6% severe or extreme burden) compared to MR colonography (5.2% severe or extreme burden) (P<0.0001). When discarding the bowel preparations, the examinations were rated equally burdensome (P=0.35). The majority of patients (61.4%) preferred MR colonography compared to colonoscopy (29.5%) immediately after the examinations and five weeks later (57.0% versus 39.5%)., Conclusion: MR colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation demonstrated less burden compared to colonoscopy. The majority of patients preferred MR colonography over colonoscopy., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp  ≥  6  mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

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., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the United States, and a major cause of mortality. Early detection of colorectal cancer and its precursors reduces mortality and morbidity, and a minimally invasive screening tool is essential for high patient acceptance and participation. To achieve this goal, computed tomographic colonography and magnetic resonance (MR) colonography have been introduced. A wide variety of methods of bowel preparation, colon distension, and imaging exists for MR colonography. This article presents an up-to-date overview of the status of MR colonography in screening for colorectal cancer, and its diagnosis., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To assess the feasibility of colorectal cancer detection using dual-energy computed tomography with iodine mapping and without bowel preparation or bowel distension., Materials and Methods: Consecutive patients scheduled for preoperative staging computed tomography (CT) because of diagnosed or high suspicion for colorectal cancer were prospectively included in the study. A single contrast-enhanced abdominal CT acquisition using dual-source mode (100 kV/140 kV) was performed without bowel preparation. Weighted average 120 kV images and iodine maps were created with post-processing. Two observers performed a blinded read for colorectal lesions after being trained on three colorectal cancer patients. One observer performed an unblinded read for lesion detectability and placed a region of interest (ROI) within each lesion., Results: In total 21 patients were included and 18 had a colorectal cancer at the time of the CT acquisition. Median cancer size was 43 mm [interquartile range (IQR) 27-60 mm] and all 18 colorectal cancers were visible on the 120 kV images and iodine map during the unblinded read. During the blinded read, observers found 90% (27/30) of the cancers with 120 kV images only and 96.7% (29/30) after viewing the iodine map in addition (p = 0.5). Median enhancement of colorectal cancers was 29.9 HU (IQR 23.1-34.6). The largest benign lesions (70 and 25 mm) were visible on the 120 kV images and iodine map, whereas four smaller benign lesions (7-15 mm) were not., Conclusion: Colorectal cancers are visible on the contrast-enhanced dual-energy CT without bowel preparation or insufflation. Because of the patient-friendly nature of this approach, further studies should explore its use for colorectal cancer detection in frail and elderly patients., (Copyright © 2013 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the level of informed decision making in a randomized controlled trial comparing colonoscopy and CT-colonography for colorectal cancer screening., Methods: 8844 citizens aged 50-75 were randomly invited to colonoscopy (n=5924) or CT-colonography (n=2920) screening. All invitees received an information leaflet. Screenees received a questionnaire within 4 weeks before the planned examination, non-screenees 4 weeks after the invitation. A decision was categorized as informed when characterized by sufficient decision-relevant knowledge and consistent with personal attitudes toward participation in screening., Results: Knowledge and attitude items were completed by 1032/1276 colonoscopy screenees (81%), by 698/4648 colonoscopy non-screenees (15%), by 824/982 CT-colonography screenees (84%) and by 192/1938 CT-colonography non-screenees (10%). 1027 colonoscopy screenees (>99%) and 815 CT-colonography screenees (99%) had adequate knowledge; 915 (89%) and 742 (90%) had a positive attitude. 675 non-screenees invited to colonoscopy (97%) and 182 invited to CT-colonography (95%) had adequate knowledge; 344 (49%) and 94 (49%) expressed a negative attitude., Conclusion: A large majority of screenees made an informed decision on participation. Almost half of responding non-screenees, made an uninformed decision, suggesting additional barriers to participation., Practice Implications: Efforts to understand the additional barriers will create opportunities to facilitate informed participation to colorectal cancer screening., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Computed tomography (CT) colonography cost assumptions so far ranged from 346 to 594 per procedure, based on clinical CT reimbursement rates. The aim of our study was to estimate the costs in a screening situation., Methods: Data were collected within an invitational population-based CRC screening trial (n = 2,920, age 50-75 years) with a dedicated CT-screening setting. Unit costs were calculated per action, per invitee and per participant (depending on adherence) and per individual with detected advanced neoplasia. Sensitivity analyses were performed, and alternative scenarios were considered., Results: Of the invitees, 47.2 % were reminded, 38.8 % scheduled for an intake, 37.2 % scheduled for CT colonography, 33.6 % underwent CT colonography and 1.1 % needed a re-examination. Lesions ≥ 10 mm were detected in 2.9 % of the invitees. Invitation costs were Euro 5.57. Costs per CT colonography (intake to results) were Euro 144.00. Extra costs of communication of positive results were Euro 9.00. Average costs of invitational-based CT colonography screening were Euro 56.97 per invitee, Euro 169.40 per participant and Euro 2,772.51 per individual with detected advanced neoplasia., Conclusions: Dutch costs of CT-screening were substantially lower than the cost assumptions that were used in published cost-effectiveness analyses on CT colonography screening. This finding indicates that previous cost-effectiveness analyses should be updated, at least for the Dutch situation.

The sensitivity of computed tomography (CT) colonography for colorectal carcinoma and large polyps (≥ 10 mm) is comparable with that of colonoscopy. Acceptance in symptomatic patients is higher than for colonoscopy. The accuracy of CT colonography for polyps of 6-9 mm, for flat polyps and in particular for polyps < 6 mm is lower than for colonoscopy. Indication for CT colonography depends on the a prior chance of finding something relevant, as colonoscopy is necessary in the case of relevant findings. CT colonography can be an alternative to colonoscopy in patients with symptoms consistent with colorectal cancer when colonoscopy is not possible or appears incomplete. It can be used as primary technique in older patients with comorbidity and low a prior chance of relevant findings. CT colonography is less appropriate for surveillance as the accuracy for flat polyps is lower. CT colonography is not suitable in hereditary syndromes due to the lower accuracy for polyps < 10 mm. CT colonography can be a good alternative in patients with irritable bowel syndrome in the case of a low suspicion of colorectal cancer.

Background and Study Aims: Time limitations and unwanted health effects may act as barriers to participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The aim of the study was to measure the time requirements and health effects of colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening., Patients and Methods: This was a prospective diary study in a consecutive sample within a randomized controlled CRC screening trial, comparing primary colonoscopy and CTC screening for average-risk individuals aged 50 - 74 years. The diary ended when all screening-related complaints had passed., Results: The diary was returned by 75 % (241/322) of colonoscopy and 75 % (127/170) of CTC screenees. The median interval between leaving home and returning from the examination was longer for colonoscopy (4 hours and 18 minutes [4:18], interquartile range [IQR] 3:30 - 5:00) than for CTC (2:30 hours, IQR 2:06 - 3:00; P < 0.001). Similarly, the time to return to routine activities was longer after colonoscopy (3:54 hours, IQR 1:48 - 15:00) than after CTC (1:36 hours, IQR 0:54 - 4:42). The duration of screening-related symptoms after the examination was shorter for colonoscopy (11:00 hours, IQR 2:54 - 20:00) than for CTC (22:00 hours; IQR 5:30 - 47:00; P < 0.001). Abdominal complaints were reported more frequently after CTC. Anxiety, pain, and quality of life worsened during the screening process, with no differences between the two examinations., Conclusions: Compared with colonoscopy, CTC screening required less time and allowed screenees to return to their daily activities more quickly. In contrast, CTC was associated with a twofold longer duration of screening-related symptoms. Feelings of anxiety, pain, and quality of life scores were similar during colonoscopy and CTC screening. These results should be incorporated into cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC screening techniques., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Objective: CT-colonography has been suggested to be less burdensome for primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screening than colonoscopy. To compare the expected and perceived burden of both in a randomised trial., Design: 8844 Dutch citizens aged 50-74 years were randomly invited for CRC screening with colonoscopy (n=5924) or CT-colonography (n=2920). Colonoscopy was performed after full colon lavage, or CT-colonography after limited bowel preparation (non-cathartic). All invitees were asked to complete the expected burden questionnaire before the procedure. All participants were invited to complete the perceived burden questionnaire 14 days later. Mean scores were calculated on 5-point scales., Results: Expected burden: 2111 (36%) colonoscopy and 1199 (41%) CT-colonography invitees completed the expected burden questionnaire. Colonoscopy invitees expected the bowel preparation and screening procedure to be more burdensome than CT-colonography invitees: mean scores 3.0±1.1 vs 2.3±0.9 (p<0.001) and 3.1±1.1 vs 2.2±0.9 (p<0.001). Perceived burden: 1009/1276 (79%) colonoscopy and 801/982 (82%) CT-colonography participants completed the perceived burden questionnaire. The full screening procedure was reported as more burdensome in CT-colonography than in colonoscopy: 1.8±0.9 vs 2.0±0.9 (p<0.001). Drinking the bowel preparation resulted in a higher burden score in colonoscopy (3.0±1.3 vs 1.7±1.0, p<0.001) while related bowel movements were scored more burdensome in CT-colonography (2.0±1.0 vs 2.2±1.1, p<0.001). Most participants would probably or definitely take part in a next screening round: 96% for colonoscopy and 93% for CT-colonography (p=0.99)., Conclusion: In a CRC screening programme, colonoscopy invitees expected the screening procedure and bowel preparation to be more burdensome than CT-colonography invitees. In participants, CT-colonography was scored as more burdensome than colonoscopy. Intended participation in a next screening round was comparable.

Background: A pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is necessary to assess a screenee's general health status and to explain benefits and risks of screening. The first option allows for personal attention, whereas a telephone consultation does not require travelling. We hypothesised that a telephone consultation would lead to higher response and participation in CRC screening compared with a face-to-face consultation., Methods: A total of 6600 persons (50-75 years) were 1:1 randomised for primary colonoscopy screening with a pre-colonoscopy consultation either face-to-face or by telephone. In both arms, we counted the number of invitees who attended a pre-colonoscopy consultation (response) and the number of those who subsequently attended colonoscopy (participation), relative to the number invited for screening. A questionnaire regarding satisfaction with the consultation and expected burden of the colonoscopy (scored on five-point rating scales) was sent to invitees. Besides, a questionnaire to assess the perceived burden of colonoscopy was sent to participants, 14 days after the procedure., Results: In all, 3302 invitees were allocated to the telephone group and 3298 to the face-to-face group, of which 794 (24%) attended a telephone consultation and 822 (25%) a face-to-face consultation (P=0.41). Subsequently, 674 (20%) participants in the telephone group and 752 (23%) in the face-to-face group attended colonoscopy (P=0.018). Invitees and responders in the telephone group expected the bowel preparation to be more painful than those in the face-to-face group while perceived burden scores for the full screening procedure were comparable. More subjects in the face-to-face group than in the telephone group were satisfied by the consultation in general: (99.8% vs 98.5%, P=0.014)., Conclusion: Using a telephone rather than a face-to-face consultation in a population-based CRC colonoscopy screening programme leads to similar response rates but significantly lower colonoscopy participation.

Purpose: To compare the diagnostic yields of a radiologist and trained technologists in the detection of advanced neoplasia within a population-based computed tomographic (CT) colonography screening program., Materials and Methods: Ethical approval was obtained from the Dutch Health Council, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Nine hundred eighty-two participants (507 men, 475 women) underwent low-dose CT colonography after noncathartic bowel preparation (iodine tagging) between July 13, 2009, and January 21, 2011. Each scan was evaluated by one of three experienced radiologists (≥800 examinations) by using primary two-dimensional (2D) reading followed by secondary computer-aided detection (CAD) and by two of four trained technologists (≥200 examinations, with colonoscopic verification) by using primary 2D reading followed by three-dimensional analysis and CAD. Immediate colonoscopy was recommended for participants with lesions measuring at least 10 mm, and surveillance was recommended for participants with lesions measuring 6-9 mm. Consensus between technologists was achieved in case of discordant recommendations. Detection of advanced neoplasia (classified by a pathologist) was defined as a true-positive (TP) finding. Relative TP and false-positive (FP) fractions were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: Overall, 96 of the 982 participants were referred for colonoscopy and 104 were scheduled for surveillance. Sixty of 84 participants (71%) referred for colonoscopy by the radiologist had advanced neoplasia, compared with 55 of 64 participants (86%) referred by two technologists. Both the radiologist and technologists detected all colorectal cancers (n = 5). The relative TP fraction (for technologists vs radiologist) for advanced neoplasia was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.07), and the relative FP fraction was 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.67)., Conclusion: Two technologists serving as a primary reader of CT colonographic images can achieve a comparable sensitivity to that of a radiologist for the detection of advanced neoplasia, with far fewer FP referrals for colonoscopy., (© RSNA, 2012)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. CRC screening has been proven to reduce disease-specific mortality and several European countries employ national screening programmes. These almost exclusively rely on stool tests, with endoscopy used as an adjunct in some countries. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a potential screening test, with an estimated sensitivity of 88 % for advanced neoplasia ≥10 mm. Recent randomised studies have shown that CTC and colonoscopy have similar yields of advanced neoplasia per screened invitee, indicating that CTC is potentially viable as a primary screening test. However, the evidence is not fully elaborated. It is unclear whether CTC screening is cost-effective and the impact of extracolonic findings, both medical and economic, remains unknown. Furthermore, the effect of CTC screening on CRC-related mortality is unknown, as it is also unknown for colonoscopy. It is plausible that both techniques could lead to decreased mortality, as for sigmoidoscopy and gFOBT. Although radiation exposure is a drawback, this disadvantage may be over-emphasised. In conclusion, the detection characteristics and acceptability of CTC suggest it is a viable screening investigation. Implementation will depend on detection of extracolonic disease and health-economic impact. Key Points • Meta-analysis of CT colonographic screening showed high sensitivity for advanced neoplasia ≥10mm. • CTC, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy screening all have similar yields for advanced neoplasia. • Good quality information regarding the cost-effectiveness of CTC screening is lacking. • There is little good quality data regarding the impact of extracolonic findings. • CTC triage is not clinically effective in first round gFOBT/FIT positives.

Background: Screening for colorectal cancer is widely recommended, but the preferred strategy remains unidentified. We aimed to compare participation and diagnostic yield between screening with colonoscopy and with non-cathartic CT colonography., Methods: Members of the general population, aged 50-75 years, and living in the regions of Amsterdam or Rotterdam, identified via the registries of the regional municipal administration, were randomly allocated (2:1) to be invited for primary screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or by CT colonography. Randomisation was done per household with a minimisation algorithm based on age, sex, and socioeconomic status. Invitations were sent between June 8, 2009, and Aug 16, 2010. Participants assigned to CT colonography who were found to have one or more large lesions (≥10 mm) were offered colonoscopy; those with 6-9 mm lesions were offered surveillance CT colonography. The primary outcome was the participation rate, defined as number of invitees undergoing the examination relative to the total number of invitees. Diagnostic yield was calculated as number of participants with advanced neoplasia relative to the total number of invitees. Invitees and screening centre employees were not masked to allocation. This trial is registered in the Dutch trial register, number NTR1829., Findings: 1276 (22%) of 5924 colonoscopy invitees participated, compared with 982 (34%) of 2920 CT colonography invitees (relative risk [RR] 1·56, 95% CI 1·46-1·68; p<0·0001). Of the participants in the colonoscopy group, 111 (9%) had advanced neoplasia of whom seven (<1%) had a carcinoma. Of CT colonography participants, 84 (9%) were offered colonoscopy, of whom 60 (6%) had advanced neoplasia of whom five (<1%) had a carcinoma; 82 (8%) were offered surveillance. The diagnostic yield for all advanced neoplasia was 8·7 per 100 participants for colonoscopy versus 6·1 per 100 for CT colonography (RR 1·46, 95% CI 1·06-2·03; p=0·02) and 1·9 per 100 invitees for colonoscopy and 2·1 per 100 invitees for CT colonography (RR 0·91, 0·66-2·03; p=0·56). The diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia of 10 mm or more was 1·5 per 100 invitees for colonoscopy and 2·0 per 100 invitees for CT colonography, respectively (RR 0·74, 95% CI 0·53-1·03; p=0·07). Serious adverse events related to the screening procedure were post-polypectomy bleedings: two in the colonoscopy group and three in the CT colonography group., Interpretation: Participation in colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography was significantly better than with colonoscopy, but colonoscopy identified significantly more advanced neoplasia per 100 participants than did CT colonography. The diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia per 100 invitees was similar for both strategies, indicating that both techniques can be used for population-based screening for colorectal cancer. Other factors such as cost-effectiveness and perceived burden should be taken into account when deciding which technique is preferable., Funding: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Centre for Translational Molecular Medicine, and the Nuts Ohra Foundation., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Dutch guidelines made the following recommendations for staging colorectal cancer (CRC). For liver metastases, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could be used. For lung metastases, imaging could be limited to chest X-ray. The primary aim of this survey was to summarise the use of imaging modalities and the variation in techniques. Three surveys were created and sent to three groups of medical specialists, namely surgeons, radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians. The management survey included questions on the role of different modalities for evaluation of synchronous liver, lung and extrahepatic metastases. The radiological survey included questions concerning the technical aspects of ultrasound (US), CT and MRI. The nuclear medicine survey included questions concerning the technical aspects of FDG-PET and FDG-PET/CT. The management and radiological surveys were sent to abdominal surgeons and abdominal radiologists within 88 hospitals and the nuclear medicine survey to specialists within 34 hospitals. Response rates were 75.0% (n=66/88), 77.3% (n=68/88) and 64.7% (n=22/34) for the management, radiological and nuclear medicine surveys, respectively. For liver metastases, the first modality of choice was CT in 52 (78.8%) and US in 12 hospitals (18.2%). Lung metastases were evaluated by either chest X-ray or chest CT and extrahepatic metastases mainly by CT (n=55). In the radiological and nuclear medicine surveys, some variations in techniques of US, CT, MRI , FDG-PET and FDG-PET/CT were seen. CT is primarily used for liver and extrahepatic metastases and both chest CT and chest X-ray for lung metastases. There are discrepancies between the survey of daily practice and the present guidelines. Comparative studies on different staging strategies for colon and rectal cancer, including comparing a strategy of CT liver/abdomen versus MRI liver/abdomen for the evaluation of liver and extrahepatic disease and chest X-ray or chest CT for lung metastases would be important for well-founded adjustments of the present guidelines.

Background: Although CT colonography is a less invasive alternative for colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer, procedural pain is common. In several studies, CT colonography pain and burden is higher than in colonoscopy. Apart from discomfort, anxiety and its related stress-induced peri- procedural side effects, this may influence the adherence for CT colonography as a possible screening tool for colorectal cancer. We hypothesize that a single bolus intravenous alfentanil will give a clinically relevant reduction in maximum pain defined as at least 1.3 point reduction on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS)., Methods/design: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in which patients scheduled for elective CT colonography in a single tertiary centre are eligible for inclusion. The first 90 consenting patient will be block-randomized to either the alfentanil group or the placebo group. Before bowel insufflation, the alfentanil group receives a single bolus intravenous alfentanil 7.5 μg/kg dissolved in 0.9% NaCl, while the placebo group receives an intravenous bolus injection of pure 0.9% NaCl. For both groups an equal amount of fluid per kilogram (75 μL/kg) is injected. The primary outcome is the difference in maximum pain on an 11-point NRS. Secondary outcomes include: pain and burden of different CT colonography aspects, side effects, procedural time and recovery time. For the primary outcome an independent samples t-test is performed and a P value<0.05 is considered statistically significant., Discussion: This study will provide evidence whether a single bolus intravenous alfentanil gives a clinically relevant reduction in maximum pain during CT colonography., Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2902. This trial will be conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The department of radiology of the Academic Medical Center of Amsterdam is responsible for the design and conduct of the trial.

Objectives: Previous meta-analyses on CT-colonography included both average and high risk individuals, which may overestimate the diagnostic value in screening. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain the value of CT-colonography for screening., Methods: A search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane. Article selection and critical appraisal was done by two reviewers., Inclusion Criteria: prospective, randomized trials or cohort studies comparing CT-colonography with colonoscopy (≥50 participants), ≥95% average risk participants ≥50 years. Study characteristics and 2 × 2 contingency Tables were recorded. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated per patient and per polyp (≥6 mm, ≥10 mm), using univariate and bivariate analyses., Results: Five of 1,021 studies identified were included, including 4,086 participants (<1% high risk). I(2)-values showed substantial heterogeneity, especially for 6-9 mm polyps and adenomas: 68.1% vs. 78.6% (sensitivity per patient). Estimated sensitivities for patients with polyps or adenomas ≥ 6 mm were 75.9% and 82.9%, corresponding specificities 94.6% and 91.4%. Estimated sensitivities for patients with polyps or adenomas ≥ 10 mm were 83.3% and 87.9%, corresponding specificities 98.7% and 97.6%. Estimated sensitivities per polyp for advanced adenomas ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm were 83.9% and 83.8%., Conclusion: Compared to colonoscopy, CT-colonography has a high sensitivity for adenomas ≥ 10 mm. For (advanced) adenomas ≥ 6 mm sensitivity is somewhat lower.

Aim: To obtain information regarding the demographics of attendees of computed tomography colonography (CTC) training workshops organized by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), in particular their prior expertise and current practice., Materials and Methods: Attendees at five CTC training workshops conducted in Edinburgh (UK), Malmo (Sweden), Amsterdam (Netherlands), Pisa and Stresa (Italy) between February 2007 and April 2010 completed an online questionnaire. Responses were collated and descriptive statistics produced., Results: Three hundred and forty-eight delegates responded; a response rate of 73%. There was wide geographical variability encompassing 20 European member-states and seven countries outside Europe. The overwhelming majority were radiologists (336; 97%). Of the respondents, 299 (86%) were already interpreting CTC in clinical practice but of these, 158 (54%) had no prior formal training in CTC whereas 21 (8%) had attended a previous workshop. Furthermore, of those reporting CTC, 227 (76%) had interpreted fewer than 50 cases., Conclusions: Despite political imperatives for other groups to interpret CTC, the vast majority of those attending training are radiologists. Worryingly, a significant proportion of these are apparently reporting CTC in clinical practice without adequate training., (Copyright © 2011 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Incidental extracolonic findings affect patient treatment and cost. Therefore, to consider magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) as a tool for colorectal cancer and polyps screening, more knowledge is needed on extracolonic findings. In this study, we sought to determine the prevalence and the spectrum of extracolonic findings in patients with an increased risk colorectal cancer that underwent bright lumen MRC., Materials and Methods: MRC examinations were performed in 210 patients. A gadolinium solution was administered rectally for distension of the colon. Extracolonic findings were scored by two radiologists and classified by using C-RADS Reporting System. All findings (with advice regarding work-up) were reported to the patient's physician and followed up for 4.5 years on average., Results: Extracolonic findings were found in 125 (59.5%) patients. Ten (4.8%) had "potentially important" findings (C-RADS category E4). Twenty-five patients (11.9%) had "likely unimportant" findings (E3), 90 (42.8%) had "clinically unimportant" findings (E2) and 85 (40.5%) had a normal exam (E1). In 14 (6.7%) patients additional work-up was performed for their incidentally discovered lesions. In three of them surgery was performed. After work-up, only in two (1.0%) patients a malignancy was found., Conclusion: The number of new relevant extracolonic findings is small and the required additional work-up is limited. This should be considered for implementation of 'bright lumen' MRC as a screening tool., (Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To evaluate the minimal iodine contrast medium load necessary for an optimal computed tomography colonography tagging quality., Materials and Methods: Faecal occult blood test positive patients were randomly selected for one of three iodine bowel preparations: (1) 3 × 50 ml meglumine ioxithalamate (45 g iodine), (2) 4 × 25 ml meglumine ioxithalamate (30 g iodine); or (3) 3 × 25 ml (22.5 g iodine) meglumine ioxithalamate. Two experienced readers assessed the tagging quality per colonic segment on a five-point scale and the presence of adherent stool. Also semi-automatic homogeneity measurements were performed. Patient acceptance was assessed with questionnaires., Results: Of 70 eligible patients, 45 patients participated (25 males, mean age 62 years). Each preparation group contained 15 patients. The quality of tagging was insufficient (score 1-2) in 0% of segments in group 1; 4% in group 2 (p<0.01 versus group 1); and 5% in group 3 (p=0.06 versus group 1). In group 1 in 11% of the segments adherent stool was present compared with 49% in group 2 and 41% in group 3 (p<0.01, group 2 and 3 versus group 1). Homogeneity was 85, 102 (p<0.01), and 91 SD HU (p=0.26) in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In group 1 two patients experienced no burden after contrast agent ingestion compared to one patient in group 2 and nine patients in group 3 (p=0.017)., Conclusion: A dose of 3 × 50 ml meglumine ioxithalamate is advisable for an optimal tagging quality despite beneficial effects on the patient acceptance in patients receiving a lower dose., (Copyright © 2010 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Aim was to evaluate the accuracy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) for detection of colorectal neoplasia in a Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) positive screening population., Methods: In three different institutions, consecutive FOBT positives underwent CTC after laxative free iodine tagging bowel preparation followed by colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. Each CTC was read by two experienced observers. For CTC and for colonoscopy the per-polyp sensitivity and per-patient sensitivity and specificity were calculated for detection of carcinomas, advanced adenomas, and adenomas., Results: In total 22 of 302 included FOBT positive participants had a carcinoma (7%) and 137 had an adenoma or carcinoma ≥10 mm (45%). CTC sensitivity for carcinoma was 95% with one rectal carcinoma as false negative finding. CTC sensitivity for advanced adenomas was 92% (95% CI: 88-96) vs. 96% (95% CI: 93-99) for colonoscopy (P = 0.26). For adenomas and carcinomas ≥10 mm the CTC per-polyp sensitivity was 93% (95% CI: 89-97) vs. 97% (95% CI: 94-99) for colonoscopy (P = 0.17). The per-patient sensitivity for the detection of adenomas and carcinomas ≥10 mm was 95% (95% CI: 91-99) for CTC vs. 99% (95% CI: 98-100) for colonoscopy (P = 0.07), while the per-patient specificity was 90% (95% CI: 86-95) and 96% (95% CI: 94-99), respectively (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: CTC with limited bowel preparation performed in an FOBT positive screening population has high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of adenomas and carcinomas and a sensitivity similar to that of colonoscopy for relevant lesions.

Purpose: To obtain diagnostic performance values of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET), and FDG PET/CT in the detection of colorectal liver metastases in patients who have not previously undergone therapy., Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was performed for articles published from January 1990 to January 2010 that fulfilled the following criteria: a prospective study design was used; the study population included at least 10 patients; patients had histopathologically proved colorectal cancer; CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, or FDG PET/CT was performed for the detection of liver metastases; intraoperative findings or those from histopathologic examination or follow-up were used as the reference standard; and data for calculating sensitivity and specificity were included. Study design characteristics, patient characteristics, imaging features, reference tests, and 2 × 2 tables were recorded., Results: Thirty-nine articles (3391 patients) were included. Variation existed in study design characteristics, patient descriptions, imaging features, and reference tests. The sensitivity estimates of CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET on a per-lesion basis were 74.4%, 80.3%, and 81.4%, respectively. On a per-patient basis, the sensitivities of CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET were 83.6%, 88.2%, and 94.1%, respectively. The per-patient sensitivity of CT was lower than that of FDG PET (P = .025). Specificity estimates were comparable. For lesions smaller than 10 mm, the sensitivity estimates for MR imaging were higher than those for CT. No differences were seen for lesions measuring at least 10 mm. The sensitivity of MR imaging increased significantly after January 2004. The use of liver-specific contrast material and multisection CT scanners did not provide improved results. Data about FDG PET/CT were too limited for comparisons with other modalities., Conclusion: MR imaging is the preferred first-line modality for evaluating colorectal liver metastases in patients who have not previously undergone therapy. FDG PET can be used as the second-line modality. The role of FDG PET/CT is not yet clear owing to the small number of studies., Supplemental Material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100729/-/DC1., (© RSNA, 2010)

Purpose: To prospectively evaluate a new imaging sequence (4D THRIVE) for whole liver perfusion in high temporal and spatial resolution. Feasibility of parametric mapping and its potential for characterizing focal liver lesions (FLLs) are investigated., Materials and Methods: Fifteen patients suspected for colorectal liver metastases (LMs) were included. Parametric maps were evaluated qualitatively (ring-enhancement and lesion heterogeneity) and compared to three-phased contrast-enhanced MRI. Quantitative analysis was based on average perfusion values of entire FLLs. Reference standard comprised surgery with histopathology or follow-up imaging. Fisher's exact test was used for qualitative and Kruskal-Wallis test for quantitative analysis., Results: In total 29 LMs, 17 hemangiomas and 4 focal nodular hyperplasias were evaluated. FLLs could be differentiated by qualitative assessment of parametric maps respectively three-phased contrast-enhanced MRI (Fisher's p<0.001 for comparisons between LMs and hemangiomas and LMs and FNHs for both ring-enhancement and lesion heterogeneity) rather than by quantitative analysis of parametric maps (Chi-square for Kep=0.33 (p=0.847) and Chi-square for Kel=1.35 (p=0.509))., Conclusion: This preliminary study shows potential of 4D THRIVE for whole liver imaging enabling calculation of parametric maps. Qualitative rather than quantitative analysis was accurate for differentiating malignant and benign FLLs., (Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. Early detection and removal of CRC or its precursor lesions by population screening can reduce mortality. Colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) are highly accurate exams and screening options that examine the entire colon. The success of screening depends on the participation rate. We designed a randomized trial to compare the uptake, yield and costs of direct colonoscopy population screening, using either a telephone consultation or a consultation at the outpatient clinic, versus CT colonography first, with colonoscopy in CT colonography positives., Methods and Design: 7,500 persons between 50 and 75 years will be randomly selected from the electronic database of the municipal administration registration and will receive an invitation to participate in either CT colonography (2,500 persons) or colonoscopy (5,000 persons) screening. Those invited for colonoscopy screening will be randomized to a prior consultation either by telephone or a visit at the outpatient clinic. All CT colonography invitees will have a prior consultation by telephone. Invitees are instructed to consult their general practitioner and not to participate in screening if they have symptoms suggestive for CRC. After providing informed consent, participants will be scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome measure of this study is the participation rate. Secondary outcomes are the diagnostic yield, the expected and perceived burden of the screening test, level of informed choice and cost-effectiveness of both screening methods., Discussion: This study will provide further evidence to enable decision making in population screening for colorectal cancer., Trial Registration: Dutch trial register: NTR1829.

Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of MR-colonography for the detection of colorectal lesions., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed for comparative MR-colonography studies, published between May 1997 and February 2009, using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. We included studies if MR-colonography findings were prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy in (a)symptomatic patients. Two reviewers independently extracted study design characteristics and data for summarising sensitivity and specificity. Heterogeneity in findings between studies was tested using I (2) test statistics. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated on per patient basis and summary sensitivity on per polyp basis, using bivariate and univariate statistical models., Results: Thirty-seven studies were found to be potentially relevant and 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The study population comprised 1,285 patients with a mean disease prevalence of 44% (range 22-63%). Sensitivity for the detection of CRC was 100%. Significant heterogeneity was found for overall per patient sensitivity and specificity. For polyps with a size of 10 mm or larger, per patient sensitivity and specificity estimates were 88% (95% CI 63-97%; I (2) = 37%) and 99% (95% CI 95-100%; I (2) = 60%). On a per polyp basis, polyps of 10 mm or larger were detected with a sensitivity of 84% (95% CI 66-94%; I (2) = 51%). The data were too heterogeneous for polyps smaller than 6 mm and 6-9 mm., Conclusion: MR-colonography can accurately detect colorectal polyps more than 10 mm in size.

Background: Magnetoliposomes have pronounced signal-enhancing effect on T1-weighted (T1w) images of the liver using qualitative analysis which may be benefical for demonstrating peritumoral vasculature., Purpose: To correlate peri-tumoral vasculature (ring-enhancement) surrounding colorectal liver metastases after injection of magnetoliposomes using T1-weighted (T1w) imaging with histopathology in a rat model., Material and Methods: All experiments were approved by the responsible Animal Care Committee. Three rats injected with CC531 coloncarcinoma cells in the portal vein were imaged at 3T using a small diameter four channel coil. The presence of liver metastases, signal intensity changes within intrahepatic vessels, peri-tumoral vasculature (ring-enhancement) surrounding liver metastases on T1w imaging and histopathology, and the histopathological distribution of iron particles were evaluated. SS SE-EPI and T1w GE sequences were used. Images were evaluated qualitatively and MRI findings were correlated with histopathology., Results: Fifteen liver metastases were present which were all detected at MRI (mean diameter 2.4 mm (SD 0.8 mm, range 1.5-4.7 mm)). Ring-enhancement surrounding liver metastases at contrast-enhanced T1w GE sequences was present in all liver metastases. Correlation with histopathology showed the corresponding presence of dilated sinusoids filled with iron particles surrounding the liver metastases., Conclusion: Blood-pooling of iron oxide particles within magnetoliposomes was demonstrated with increased and hyperintensity of vessels after injection of magnetoliposomes. Qualitatively, ring-enhancement surrounding the liver metastases was seen on T1w imaging and corresponded histopathologically with the presence of iron particles (magnetoliposomes) within the dilated sinusoids surrounding the liver metastases.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare a 1-day with a 2-day iodine bowel preparation for CT colonography in a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening population., Materials and Methods: One hundred consecutive patients underwent CT colonography and colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. The first 50 patients (group 1) ingested 7 50 ml iodinated contrast starting 2 days before CT colonography. The latter 50 patients (group 2) ingested 4 50 ml iodinated contrast starting 1 day before CT colonography. Per colonic segment measurements of residual stool attenuation and homogeneity were performed, and a subjective evaluation of tagging quality (grade 1-5) was done. Independently, two reviewers performed polyp and carcinoma detection., Results: The tagging density was 638 and 618 HU (p = 0.458) and homogeneity 91 and 86 HU for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.145). The tagging quality was graded 5 (excellent) in 90% of all segments in group 1 and 91% in group 2 (p = 0.749). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for lesions >or=10 mm was 86% in group 1 and 97% in group 2 (p = 0.355). Patient burden from diarrhoea significantly decreased for patients in group 2., Conclusions: One-day preparation with meglumine ioxithalamate results in an improved patient acceptability compared with 2-day preparation and has a comparable, excellent image quality and good diagnostic performance.

The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare participant experience and preference of limited preparation computed tomography colonography (CTC) with full-preparation colonoscopy in a consecutive series of patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. CTC preparation comprised 180 ml diatrizoate meglumine, 80 ml barium and 30 mg bisacodyl. For the colonoscopy preparation 4 l of polyethylene glycol solution was used. Participants' experience and preference were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the chi-squared test, respectively. Associations between preference and experience parameters for the 173 participants were determined by logistic regression. Diarrhoea occurred in 94% of participants during CTC preparation. This side effect was perceived as severely or extremely burdensome by 29%. Nonetheless, the total burden was significantly lower for the CTC preparation than for colonoscopy (9% rated the CTC preparation as severely or extremely burdensome compared with 59% for colonoscopy; p < 0.001). Participants experienced significantly more pain, discomfort and total burden with the colonoscopy procedure than with CTC (p < 0.001). After 5 weeks, 69% preferred CTC, 8% were indifferent and 23% preferred colonoscopy (p < 0.001). A burdensome colonoscopy preparation and pain at colonoscopy were associated with CTC preference (p < 0.04). In conclusion, participants' experience and preference were rated in favour of CTC with limited bowel preparation compared with full-preparation colonoscopy.

Purpose: To compare lesion conspicuity and image quality between single-shot spin echo echo planar imaging (SS SE-EPI) before, immediately and 5min after intravenous (IV) injection of superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) for detecting and characterizing focal liver lesions (FLLs)., Materials and Methods: Twenty-five patients suspected for colorectal liver metastases were prospectively included. Lesion detection and characterization were compared between all SS SE-EPI and T2-weighted turbo spin echo (T2w TSE) sets (two-sided Fisher's exact test). Image quality and lesion conspicuity were compared for SS SE-EPI sets using rank order statistic (RIDIT). Reference standard comprised of surgery, biopsy and/or follow-up., Results: Reference standard demonstrated 18 benign and 43 malignant FLLs. Best lesion detection (p<0.05) was achieved with non-contrast-enhanced SS SE-EPI. Lesion characterization was best using all T2w TSE sequences. Best image quality and lesion conspicuity (p<0.05) was achieved with non-contrast-enhanced SS SE-EPI., Conclusion: Non-contrast-enhanced SS SE-EPI was best for lesion detection. SS SE-EPI sequences were not useful for lesion characterization (differentiation between benign and malignant lesions). Unenhanced SS SE-EPI did not allow differentiation especially as many benign FLLs were hyperintense on the highest b-value images. Combining unenhanced and SPIO-enhanced SS SE-EPI performed better but still was not clinically useful due to variable degree of uptake and vascular pooling of SPIO for (especially) benign FLLs. T2w TSE with SPIO-enhancement was needed for characterization.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CT colonography (CTC) as a triage technique in faecal occult blood test (FOBT)-positive screening participants., Methods: Consecutive guaiac (G-FOBT) and immunochemical (I-FOBT) FOBT-positive patients scheduled for colonoscopy underwent CTC with iodine tagging bowel preparation. Each CTC was read independently by two experienced observers. Per patient sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated based on double reading with different CTC cut-off lesion sizes using segmental unblinded colonoscopy as the reference standard. The acceptability of the technique to patients was evaluated with questionnaires., Results: 302 FOBT-positive patients were included (54 G-FOBT and 248 I-FOBT). 22 FOBT-positive patients (7%) had a colorectal carcinoma and 211 (70%) had a lesion >or=6 mm. Participants considered colonoscopy more burdensome than CTC (p<0.05). Using a 6 mm CTC size cut-off, per patient sensitivity for CTC was 91% (95% CI 85% to 91%) and specificity was 69% (95% CI 60% to 89%) for the detection of colonoscopy lesions >or=6 mm. The PPV of CTC was 87% (95% CI 80% to 93%) and NPV 77% (95% CI 69% to 85%). Using CTC as a triage technique in 100 FOBT-positive patients would mean that colonoscopy could be prevented in 28 patients while missing >or=10 mm lesions in 2 patients., Conclusion: CTC with limited bowel preparation has reasonable predictive values in an FOBT-positive population and a higher acceptability to patients than colonoscopy. However, due to the high prevalence of clinically relevant lesions in FOBT-positive patients, CTC is unlikely to be an efficient triage technique in a first round FOBT population screening programme.

T2-weighted turbo spin echo sequences are being used as a first sequence for abdominal magnetic resonance imaging in many cases. For oncological patients breath-hold imaging can be difficult. T2-weighted turbo spin echo sequences can be used during breath-hold or during respiratory-triggering. The purpose of our study is to compare a respiratory-triggered fat-suppressed and breath-hold T2-weighted Turbo Spin Echo (RT and BH FS T2w TSE) sequence for focal liver lesions. Prospectively, both T2w TSE sequences were acquired in 40 patients using 1.5T MRI. Qualitatively analysis was performed for image quality, lesion conspicuity, diagnostic confidence, artifacts using two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. Quantitative analysis was performed for lesion-to-liver Contrast-to-Noise Ratio (CNR) using two-tailed Student's t-test. Qualitatively, RT FST2wTSE performed significantly (p < 0.05) better than BH FST2wTSE concerning image quality, lesion conspicuity, diagnostic confidence and artifacts. Seventy-eight metastases and 47 hemangiomas were detected on both FST2wTSE sequences. Seven liver metastases and 2 hemangiomas < 10 mm and 3 metastases between 10-20 mm detected on RT FS T2wTSE were only retrospectively detected on BH FS T2wTSE. Diagnostic confidence scores were best using RT FS T2w TSE compared with BH FS T2w TSE. Mean CNR of all lesions, mean CNR of all lesions < 10 mm and mean CNR between hemangiomas and metastases was significantly better using the RT sequence compared with the BH sequence. RT FST2wTSE might perform better than BH FST2wTSE for lesion detection and characterization in this study.

Fluoro-18-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including unenhanced single-shot spin-echo echo planar imaging (SS SE-EPI) and small paramagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) enhancement, were compared prospectively for detecting colorectal liver metastases. Twenty-four consecutive patients suspected for metastases underwent MRI and FDG-PET/CT. Fourteen patients (58%) had previously received chemotherapy, including seven patients whose chemotherapy was still continuing to within 1 month of the PET/CT study. The mean interval between PET/CT and MRI was 10.2+/-5.2 days. Histopathology (n=18) or follow-up imaging (n=6) were used as reference. Seventy-seven metastases were detected. In nine patients, MRI and PET/CT gave concordant results. Sensitivities for unenhanced SS SE-EPI, MRI without SS SE-EPI and FDG-PET/CT were, respectively, 100% (p=9 x 10(-10) vs PET, p=8 x 10(-3) vs MRI without SS SE-EPI), 90% (p=2 x 10(-7) vs PET) and 60%. PET/CT sensitivity dropped significantly with decreasing size, from 100% in lesions larger than 20 mm (identical to MRI), over 54% in lesions between 10 and 20 mm (p=3 x 10(5) versus unenhanced SS SE-EPI), to 32% in lesions under 10 mm (p=6 x 10(-5) versus unenhanced SS SE-EPI). Positive predictive value of PET was 100% (identical to MRI). MRI, particularly unenhanced SS SE-EPI, has good sensitivity and positive predictive value for detecting liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Its sensitivity is better than that of FDG-PET/CT, especially for small lesions.

In the Netherlands, the introduction of screening for colorectal cancer is being considered. CT colonography is an accurate technique for the detection of colorectal cancer and its precursors in symptomatic patients and for screening. Radiation exposure in CT colonography is limited and is no major drawback for the use of CT colonography for screening. Aspects important to screening with CT colonography have not been studied yet, such as participation rate and cost effectiveness. MR colonography for screening has been studied little.

Purpose: To assess the added value of true diffusion (D), perfusion factor (f) and apparent diffusion coefficient at low b-values (ADC(low)) for differentiation between liver metastases and hemangiomas based on respiratory-triggered high-resolution Black-Blood Single-Shot SpinEcho Echo Planar Imaging (BB SS SE-EPI)., Materials and Methods: Twenty-five patients suspected for malignant colorectal liver lesions were included in this study. A total of 106 lesions were examined. Different b-value images were compared for lesion conspicuity, image quality and artifacts using rank order statistic (RIDIT) and Student's t-test. D, f, and ADC(low) values were calculated. Pearson correlation coefficient is used for comparison of interobserver variability., Results: Best lesion conspicuity (p<0.05) was achieved with BB SS SE-EPI (b=0 and 10s/mm(2)); best image quality (p<0.05) with b=10s/mm(2). Image artifacts were lowest (p<0.05) with b=0s/mm(2). Over the whole sample, D in metastases (D(met)) was significantly (p<0.05) lower than D in hemangiomas (D(hem)); f and ADC(low) of metastases (f(met), respectively, ADC(lowmet)) were significantly (p<0.05) higher than f and ADC(low) of hemangiomas (f(hem), respectively, ADC(lowhem)). All Pearson correlations were statistically significant at a 0.01 level., Conclusions: This preliminary study shows the potential of BB SS SE-EPI as a useful technique to aid in differentiating between liver metastasis and hemangioma. The calculation of D, f and ADC(low) provides useful additional information for differentiating metastases from hemangiomas.

Imaging using ultrasonography, spiral CT, MRI and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), plays a major role at two situations during the management of patients with colorectal liver metastases: (a) at the time of the diagnosis and treatment of the primary colorectal tumour, and (b) during the follow-up for the detection of liver metastases and assessing the resectability of these metastases. At the time of the diagnosis and the treatment of the primary tumour, imaging comprising spiral CT or MRI to detect and characterize liver lesions is considered to be the modality of choice. Due to their low prevalence, imaging for the evaluation of lung metastases may be limited to conventional chest radiography. For evaluation of the extrahepatic abnormalities, abdominal and chest CT may be performed in combination with CT of the liver; alternatively a FDG-PET may be performed. During the follow-up of patients treated for colorectal carcinoma, ultrasonography is the most important imaging modality. However, if the liver cannot be adequately imaged by ultrasonography, if there is a raised level ofcarcinoembryonic antigen or irresectability cannot be determined, additional CT or MRI examination will result in more information.

Purpose: To prospectively compare single-shot spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SSSE-EPI) using b = 0, 10, 150, and 400 seconds/mm(2) with standard MRI techniques after intravenous super paramagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) in the detection and characterization of focal liver lesions with focus on small (<10 mm) focal liver lesions., Materials and Methods: A total of 25 patients suspected for colorectal liver metastases were included. Number of detected lesions was evaluated. Image quality was compared between SSSE-EPI sequence and post-SPIO (fat-suppressed T1-weighted [T1w] gradient echo [GE], T2-weighted [T2w] turbo spin echo [TSE] and T2* GE) sequences using rank order statistic (RIDIT). Lesion characterization was performed for SSSE-EPI and for all remaining sequences pre- and post-SPIO. Reference standard comprised surgery, biopsy, and/or follow-up., Results: Reference standard demonstrated 25 hemangiomas and 70 metastases. Best lesion detection respectively best image quality (P < 0.05) was achieved with SSSE-EPI (b = 10 seconds/mm(2)) post-SPIO T1w GE and T2w turbo spin echo. Lesion characterization using all sequences pre- and post-SPIO performed best for lesion characterization compared with SSSE-EPI., Conclusion: This preliminary study shows the potential of SSSE-EPI as a stand-alone sequence for the detection of liver hemangiomas and metastases when compared with SPIO-enhanced imaging. Sequences pre- and post-SPIO are needed for qualitative lesion characterization.