Quality and consistency in CT colonography and research reporting.

The rapid development of computed tomographic (CT) colonography has been accompanied by a marked increase in the number of studies with published findings evaluating the technology, diagnostic performance, and clinical acceptance of this technique. Many of the questions now being posed for CT colonography require evaluation in large multicenter trials, few of which have had their results published (1–3) and some of which are in progress. Published data from these larger trials may not become available for years. In the meantime, many important questions are answerable in the synthesis of the findings from single-institution studies. However, to date, meta-analysis of these smaller investigations has been limited by the variability in the acquisition, reporting, and analysis of data. The purpose of this editorial is to propose a standardization of reporting of prospective CT colonographic examination data for researchers and investigators, to facilitate more meaningful comparison and summary of such data in the literature of the future. At the same time, we hope that this editorial will benefit radiologists who perform CT colonography and wish to measure their own success; some of the factors to consider when analyzing their results are indicated. A typical meta-analysis, as often performed for clinical drug trials, requires a reasonable uniformity in methods. The difficulties in conducting a statistically valid meta-analysis of data from virtual colonoscopy have been summarized previously (4). In one meta-analysis (5), investigators found only 14 articles about CT colonography that met the criteria for inclusion, yet even within these articles, combining the data is statistically problematic. Although the precise methods of performing CT colonography are legislated by local institutional preference and research aims, we propose minimal requirements for reporting of data. The technical parameters for performing CT colonography will vary with the parameters being investigated, but we also propose general minimal guidelines for performance of the examination. We believe all elements relating to these parameters should also be detailed when the results are published.

[1]  J. Silverman,et al.  Endoscopically removed malignant colorectal polyps: clinicopathologic correlations. , 1995, Gastroenterology.

[2]  Abraham H Dachman,et al.  Virtual colonoscopy: past, present, and future. , 2003, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[3]  A. Dachman Diagnostic performance of virtual colonoscopy , 2002, Abdominal Imaging.

[4]  J. Yee,et al.  Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting. , 2003, Gastroenterology.

[5]  M. van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  T. Byers,et al.  American Cancer Society guidelines for screening and surveillance for early detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: Update 1997 , 1997 .

[7]  E. McFarland Reader strategies for CT colonography , 2002, Abdominal Imaging.

[8]  E G McFarland,et al.  Spiral CT colonography: reader agreement and diagnostic performance with two- and three-dimensional image-display techniques. , 2001, Radiology.

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

[10]  J A Swets,et al.  The science of choosing the right decision threshold in high-stakes diagnostics. , 1992, The American psychologist.

[11]  D. Rex,et al.  Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. , 1997, Gastroenterology.

[12]  D. Owen,et al.  Flat adenomas of the colon. , 1991, Human pathology.

[13]  P. Lavin,et al.  CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  B. Leggett,et al.  Hyperplastic Polyposis: Association With Colorectal Cancer , 2001, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[15]  Day Dw The adenoma-carcinoma sequence. , 1978 .

[16]  Mark A Espeland,et al.  Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps. , 2003, Gastroenterology.

[17]  P. Cotton,et al.  The virtual colonoscopy study: a large multicenter clinical trial designed to compare two diagnostic screening procedures. , 2002, Controlled clinical trials.

[18]  A. Hara,et al.  Detection of flat lesions in the colon with CT colonography , 2002, Abdominal Imaging.

[19]  Hiroyuki Yoshida,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis scheme for detection of polyps at CT colonography. , 2002, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[20]  M. Macari,et al.  Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. , 2002, Radiology.

[21]  T. Muto,et al.  Flat adenoma as a precursor of colorectal carcinoma in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma , 1996, Cancer.

[22]  James Perumpillichira,et al.  CT colonography: digital subtraction bowel cleansing with mucosal reconstruction initial observations. , 2003, Radiology.

[23]  W Panzer,et al.  Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography. , 1999, Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine.

[24]  C. Newschaffer,et al.  Risk for Colorectal Cancer after Gynecologic Cancer , 1999, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[25]  Michael Schocke,et al.  Detection and characterization of intracranial aneurysms with MR angiography: comparison of volume-rendering and maximum-intensity-projection algorithms. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  R. Jeffrey,et al.  Display modes for CT colonography. Part II. Blinded comparison of axial CT and virtual endoscopic and panoramic endoscopic volume-rendered studies. , 1999, Radiology.

[27]  Yoshinori Kikuchi,et al.  Hydrogen breath test as an indicator of the quality of colonic preparation for colonoscopy , 2003 .