Search

The value of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as a sensitive diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer is well established. However, there is lack of consensus in the best way to achieve expertise in interpreting these studies. In this review we discuss the value of CTC training, accreditation and performance monitoring; the qualities of good CTC interpretation training, and specific training cases with associated learning points.

International guidance recommends that readers be specifically trained before embarking on independent interpretation of CT colonography (CTC) examinations. Systematic comparison of both international training requirements and the effectiveness of CTC training is lacking in the published literature. Therefore, we identified available international training standards for CTC and performed a review of studies published in the last 20 years to assess the impact of CTC interpretation training on reader diagnostic accuracy. A wide variation in training requirements was observed. Studies of the effectiveness of CTC reader training were heterogenous in methodology, with large variation in sample size and the type of training administered. Although training in CTC interpretation improves reader sensitivity overall, it has varying impact on specificity. Consensus agreement on the best way to train and assess readers in CTC interpretation may lead to lasting improvements in reader performance.

To determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan. Retrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiology Information System data for CTC examinations from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015. For each examination, we determined how many prior CTCs had been interpreted by the reporting radiologist on that day and how long radiologists spent on interpretation. For each radiologist, we calculated their referral rate (proportion deemed positive for 6 mm+ polyp/cancer), positive predictive value (PPV) and endoscopic/surgically proven polyp detection rate (PDR). We also calculated the mean time each radiologist spent interpreting normal studies (“negative interpretation time”). We used multilevel logistic regression to investigate the relationship between the number of scans reported each day, negative interpretation time and referral rate, PPV and PDR. Five thousand one hundred ninety-one scans were interpreted by seven radiologists; 892 (17.2%) were reported as positive, and 534 (10.3%) had polyps confirmed. Both referral rate and PDR reduced as more CTCs were reported on a given day (p 20 min per case) or for too long (> 4 cases consecutively without a break). • Professional bodies should consider introducing a target minimum interpretation time for CT colonography examinations as a quality marker.

AIM To audit the performance of computed tomography colonography (CTC) at St Mark's Hospital against the joint British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (BSGAR) and Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective audit of all CTC studies between January 2012 to December 2017 was performed against the BSGAR/RCR standards along with additional data outwith the guidelines. Evidence was obtained from a central database, radiology information systems (RISs), picture archiving and communication systems (PACSs), and electronic patient records (EPRs). RESULTS Over the 6 years, 13,143 CTCs were performed and 12,996 (99%) were adequate or better. Of the cases 1,867 had a >6 mm polyp or cancer reported (polyp identification rate [PIR] 14%) and the positive predictive value (PPV) was 93% (1,148/1,240). Median radiation dose was 458 mGy·cm, mean additional acquisition rate was 19% (2,505/13,143), subsequent endoscopy rate was 9% (1,222/13,143) and mean interpretation time for a negative study was 34.6 minutes. Nine perforations occurred (perforation rate of 0.068%) and one was symptomatic (symptomatic perforation rate of 0.008%). For suspected cancers, the same-day endoscopy rate was 27% (96/360) and same-day staging rate was 76% (272/360). Post-imaging colorectal cancer rates (PICRC) was 3.06 per 100 cancers detected and 0.23 per 1,000 CTCs. The service was always rated “good” or higher by patients. CONCLUSION This audit shows the CTC service at St Mark's Hospital to be safe and of sufficiently high quality to meet the BSGAR/RCR standards with most outcomes equal to or above the aspirational target. Areas for service and individual reader improvement were also identified.

Background Most radiologists reporting CT colonography (CTC) do not undergo compulsory performance accreditation, potentially lowering diagnostic sensitivity. Purpose To determine whether 1-day individualized training in CTC reporting improves diagnostic sensitivity of experienced radiologists for 6-mm or larger lesions, the durability of any improvement, and any associated factors. Materials and Methods This prospective, multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial was performed in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales between April 2017 and January 2020. CTC services were cluster randomized into intervention (1-day training plus feedback) or control (no training or feedback) arms. Radiologists in the intervention arm attended a 1-day workshop focusing on CTC reporting pitfalls with individualized feedback. Radiologists in the control group received no training. Sensitivity for 6-mm or larger lesions was tested at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months thereafter via interpretation of 10 CTC scans at each time point. The primary outcome was the mean difference in per-lesion sensitivity between arms at 1 month, analyzed using multilevel regression after adjustment for baseline sensitivity. Secondary outcomes included per-lesion sensitivity at 6- and 12-month follow-up, sensitivity for flat neoplasia, and effect of prior CTC experience. Results A total of 69 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention (31 clusters, 80 radiologists) or control (38 clusters, 59 radiologists) arm. Radiologists were experienced (median, 500-999 CTC scans interpreted) and reported CTC scans routinely (median, 151-200 scans per year). One-month sensitivity improved after intervention (66.4% [659 of 992]) compared with sensitivity in the control group (42.4% [278 of 655]; difference = 20.8%; 95% CI: 14.6, 27.0

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is a common, important healthcare priority and improving patient outcome relies on early diagnosis. Colonoscopy and computed tomographic colonography (CTC) are commonly-used diagnostic tests. Although colonoscopists are highly regulated and must be accredited, no analogous process exists for CTC. There are currently no universally accepted radiologist performance indicators for CTC, and lack of regulatory oversight may lead to variability in quality and lower neoplasia detection rates. This study aims to determine whether a structured educational training and feedback programme can improve radiologist interpretation accuracy.MethodsNHS England CTC reporting radiologists will be cluster randomised to either an intervention (one-day individualised training and assessment with feedback) or control (assessment with no training or feedback) arm. Each cluster represents radiologists reporting CTC in a single NHS site. Both the intervention and control arm will undertake four CTC assessments at baseline, 1-month (after training; intervention arm or enrolment; control arm), 6- and 12 months to assess their detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and 6mm+ polyps. The primary outcome will be difference in sensitivity at the 1-month test between arms. Secondary outcomes will include sensitivity at 6 and 12 months and radiologist characteristics associated with improved performance. Multilevel logistic regression will be used to analyse per-polyp and per-case sensitivity. Local ethical and Health Research Authority approval have been obtained.DiscussionLack of infrastructure to ensure that CTC radiologists can report adequately and lack of consensus regarding appropriate quality metrics may lead to variability in performance. Our provision of a structured education programme with feedback will evaluate the impact of individualised training and identify the factors related to improved radiologist performance in CTC reporting. An improvement in performance could lead to increased neoplasia detection and better patient outcome.RegistrationClinical Trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02892721); available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02892721. NIHR Clinical Research Network (CPMS ID 32293).

Summary Background CT colonography is highly sensitive for colorectal cancer, but interval or post-imaging colorectal cancer rates (diagnosis of cancer after initial negative CT colonography) are unknown, as are their underlying causes. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of post-CT colonography and post-imaging colorectal cancer rates and causes to address this gap in understanding. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomised, cohort, cross-sectional, or case-control studies published between Jan 1, 1994, and Feb 28, 2017, using CT colonography done according to international consensus standards with the aim of detecting cancer or polyps, and reporting post-imaging colorectal cancer rates or sufficient data to allow their calculation. We excluded studies in which all CT colonographies were done because of incomplete colonoscopy or if CT colonography was done with knowledge of colonoscopy findings. We contacted authors of component studies for additional data where necessary for retrospective CT colonography image review and causes for each post-imaging colorectal cancer. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the study reports. Our primary outcome was prevalence of post-imaging colorectal cancer 36 months after CT colonography. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled post-imaging colorectal cancer rates, expressed using the total number of cancers and total number of CT colonographies as denominators, and per 1000 person-years. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016042437. Findings 2977 articles were screened and 12 studies were eligible for analysis. These studies reported data for 19 867 patients (aged 18–96 years; of 11 590 with sex data available, 6532 [56%] were female) between March, 2002, and May, 2015. At a mean of 34 months' follow-up (range 3–128·4 months), CT colonography detected 643 colorectal cancers. 29 post-imaging colorectal cancers were subsequently diagnosed. The pooled post-imaging colorectal cancer rate was 4·42 (95% CI 3·03–6·42) per 100 cancers detected, corresponding to 1·61 (1·11–2·33) post-imaging colorectal cancers per 1000 CT colonographies or 0·64 (0·44–0·92) post-imaging colorectal cancers per 1000 person-years. Heterogeneity was low ( I 2 =0%). 17 (61%) of 28 post-imaging colorectal cancers were attributable to perceptual error and were visible in retrospect. Interpretation CT colonography does not lead to an excess of post-test cancers relative to colonoscopy within 3–5 years, and the low 5-year post-imaging colorectal cancer rate confirms that the recommended screening interval of 5 years is safe. Since most post-imaging colorectal cancers arise from perceptual errors, radiologist training and quality assurance could help to reduce post-imaging colorectal cancer rates. Funding St Mark's Hospital Foundation and the UK National Institute for Health Research via the UCL/UCLH Biomedical Research Centre.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and important disease. There are different tests for diagnosis, one of which is computed tomographic colonography (CTC). No test is perfect, and patients with normal CTC may subsequently develop CRC (either because it was overlooked originally, or because it has developed in the interim). This is termed post-investigation colorectal cancer (PICRC) or “interval cancer”. How frequently this occurs after CTC is not known. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to use the primary literature to estimate the PICRC rate after CTC, and explore associated factors. Methods Primary studies reporting post-investigation colorectal cancer (PICRC) rates after CTC will be identified from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases. Peer-reviewed studies published after 1994 (the year CTC was introduced) will be included and the rate of PICRC within 36 months of CTC recorded. Data will be extracted from selected studies for a random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity, risk of bias and publication bias will be assessed, and exploratory analysis will examine factors associated with higher PICRC rates in the literature. Conclusion PICRC rates are the ultimate benchmark of diagnostic quality for colonic investigations. This systematic review and meta-analysis will identify and synthesise evidence to determine PICRC rates after CTC and explore factors that may contribute to higher rates. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (registration number CRD42016042437). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0432-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality can be significantly reduced by population screening. Several different screening methods are currently in use, and this review focuses specifically on the imaging technique computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The challenges and logistics of CTC screening, as well as the importance of test accuracy, uptake, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness will be discussed. With comparable advanced adenoma detection rates to colonoscopy (the most commonly used whole-colon investigation), CTC is a less-invasive alternative, requiring less laxative, and with the potential benefit that it permits assessment of extra colonic structures. Three large-scale European trials have contributed valuable evidence supporting the use of CTC in population screening, and highlight the importance of selecting appropriate clinical management pathways based on initial CTC findings. Future research into CTC-screening will likely focus on radiologist training and CTC quality assurance, with identification of evidence-based key performance indicators that are associated with clinically-relevant outcomes such as the incidence of post-test interval cancers (CRC occurring after a presumed negative CTC). In comparison to other CRC screening techniques, CTC offers a safe and accurate option that is particularly useful when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses which evaluate referral thresholds, the impact of extra-colonic findings and real-world uptake will provide useful information regarding the feasibility of future CTC population screening.