Comparing the diagnostic yields of technologists and radiologists in an invitational colorectal cancer screening program performed with CT colonography.

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.

[1]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Revised colorectal screening guidelines: joint effort of the American Cancer Society, U.S. Multisociety Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and American College of Radiology. , 2008, Radiology.

[2]  K Nikolaou,et al.  Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population , 2008, Gut.

[3]  Roel Truyen,et al.  Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers? , 2009, European Radiology.

[4]  Bernadette Mazurek Melnyk,et al.  Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. , 2008, Annals of internal medicine.

[5]  S. Taylor,et al.  CT colonography: accuracy of initial interpretation by radiographers in routine clinical practice. , 2010, Clinical radiology.

[6]  H. Fenlon,et al.  Effect of Directed Training on Reader Performance for CT Colonography: Multicenter study , 2007 .

[7]  Jaap Stoker,et al.  Diagnostic value of CT-colonography as compared to colonoscopy in an asymptomatic screening population: a meta-analysis , 2011, European Radiology.

[8]  C. Lauridsen,et al.  Effect of a tele-training programme on radiographers in the interpretation of CT colonography. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[9]  I. Mavranezouli,et al.  CT colonography and cost-effectiveness , 2008, European Radiology.

[10]  Patrik Rogalla,et al.  Robust automated polyp detection for low-dose and normal-dose virtual colonoscopy , 2005 .

[11]  Jaap Stoker,et al.  Evaluation of a Standardized CT Colonography Training Program for Novice Readers 1 , 2010 .

[12]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  The Cost-Effectiveness of CT Colonography in Screening for Colorectal Neoplasia , 2007, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[13]  S Taylor,et al.  Effect of directed training on reader performance for CT colonography: multicenter study. , 2007, Radiology.

[14]  B. Choi,et al.  The Efficacy of Intravenous Contrast-enhanced 16-raw Multidetector CT Colonography for Detecting Patients With Colorectal Polyps in an Asymptomatic Population in Korea , 2008, Journal of clinical gastroenterology.

[15]  J. Yee,et al.  Accuracy of ct colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers , 2009 .

[16]  D. Burling,et al.  CT colonography training for radiographers--a formal evaluation. , 2010, Clinical radiology.

[17]  J. Barkin,et al.  CT Colonography versus Colonoscopy for the Detection of Advanced Neoplasia , 2008 .

[18]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  Performance of radiographers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  Paul Fockens,et al.  Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. , 2012, The Lancet. Oncology.

[20]  E. Kuipers,et al.  protocolStudy protocol : population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography : a randomized controlled trial , 2010 .

[21]  Douglas K Rex,et al.  American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening 2008 , 2022 .

[22]  Amy B. Knudsen,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the medicare population. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[23]  Peter Bauerfeind,et al.  Is virtual colonoscopy a cost-effective option to screen for colorectal cancer? , 1999, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[24]  Joel G Fletcher,et al.  Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography. , 2005, Academic radiology.

[25]  J. Saurin,et al.  [Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults]. , 2004, Gastroenterologie clinique et biologique.

[26]  F. M. Vos,et al.  Three-dimensional display modes for CT colonography: conventional 3D virtual colonoscopy versus unfolded cube projection. , 2003, Radiology.