Incidental extracolonic findings at CT colonography.

PURPOSE To determine the frequency of extracolonic findings at computed tomographic (CT) colonography and the effect of these findings on subsequent patient treatment and cost. MATERIALS AND METHODS Conventional transverse CT colonographic scans in 264 consecutive patients were evaluated independently by two radiologists. Extracolonic findings were classified as having high, moderate, or low clinical importance. The effect of CT findings on patient treatment was assessed with chart review. The cost of additional examinations was calculated by using 1999 Medicare reimbursements. RESULTS Thirty (11%) patients had highly important extracolonic findings, which resulted in further examinations in 18 (7%) patients, including ultrasonography in 10, CT in 13, and intravenous pyelography in one. Six patients underwent surgery because of incidentally discovered CT colonographic findings. Two patients with findings of moderate or low importance underwent additional imaging. A total of $7,324 was required for work-up for extracolonic findings (mean of an additional $28 per examination). Three extracolonic malignancies were overlooked at CT colonography. CONCLUSION Additional work-up of extracolonic CT colonographic findings was relatively infrequent but was often worthwhile when performed for lesions classified as highly important. The evaluation of extracolonic structures at CT colonography has definite limitations with regard to solid organs but can help detect serious disease without substantially increasing the cost per patient.

[1]  J. Ferrucci,et al.  Virtual colonoscopy: imaging features with colonoscopic correlation. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  R C Smith,et al.  Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  R. J. Valentine,et al.  Role of physical examination in detection of abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 1995, Surgery.

[4]  S. Steinberg,et al.  Prospective assessment of the value of computed tomography for trauma. , 1993, The Journal of trauma.

[5]  J G Fletcher,et al.  Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. , 2000, Radiology.

[6]  J. Braithwaite,et al.  The outcomes for patients with incidental lesions: serendipitous or iatrogenic? , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  Y. Homma,et al.  INCREASED INCIDENTAL DETECTION AND REDUCED MORTALITY IN RENAL CANCER—RECENT RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS AT EIGHT INSTITUTIONS , 1995, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[8]  M. P. Nevitt,et al.  Prognosis of abdominal aortic aneurysms. A population-based study. , 1989, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  H. Forman,et al.  CT screening for comorbid disease in patients with prostatic carcinoma: is it cost-effective? , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  K R Hoffmann,et al.  CT colonography with three-dimensional problem solving for detection of colonic polyps. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  R. Kloos,et al.  Incidentally discovered adrenal masses. , 1995, Cancer treatment and research.

[12]  J. Ferrucci,et al.  A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  H. Ohmatsu,et al.  Peripheral lung cancer: screening and detection with low-dose spiral CT versus radiography. , 1996, Radiology.