The Second ESGAR Consensus Statement on CT Colonography

Overview

Journal Eur Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2012 Sep 18

PMID 22983280

Citations 47

Authors

Emanuele Neri

Steve Halligan

Mikael Hellstrom

Philippe Lefere

Thomas Mang

Daniele Regge

Jaap Stoker

Stuart Taylor

Andrea Laghi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To update quality standards for CT colonography based on consensus among opinion leaders within the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR).

Material And Methods: A multinational European panel of nine members of the ESGAR CT colonography Working Group (representing six EU countries) used a modified Delphi process to rate their level of agreement on a variety of statements pertaining to the acquisition, interpretation and implementation of CT colonography. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, each at 2 months interval.

Results: The panel elaborated 86 statements. In the final round the panelists achieved complete consensus in 71 of 86 statements (82 %). Categories including the highest proportion of statements with excellent Cronbach's internal reliability were colon distension, scan parameters, use of intravenous contrast agents, general guidelines on patient preparation, role of CAD and lesion measurement. Lower internal reliability was achieved for the use of a rectal tube, spasmolytics, decubitus positioning and number of CT data acquisitions, faecal tagging, 2D vs. 3D reading, and reporting.

Conclusion: The recommendations of the consensus should be useful for both the radiologist who is starting a CTC service and for those who have already implemented the technique but whose practice may need updating.

Citing Articles

Paris classification of colonic polyps using CT colonography: prospective cohort study of interobserver variation.

Gangi-Burton A, Plumb A, De Paepe K, Godfrey E, Halligan S, Higginson A Eur Radiol. 2024; 34(10):6877-6884.

PMID: 38488970 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10631-9.

[CT colonography : Technique and indications].

Mang T, Lampichler K, Scharitzer M Radiologie (Heidelb). 2023; 63(6):418-428.

PMID: 37249607 PMC: 10234944. DOI: 10.1007/s00117-023-01153-4.

[Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of colonic diseases].

Scharitzer M, Lampichler K, Popp S, Mang T Radiologie (Heidelb). 2023; 63(6):441-450.

PMID: 37219728 PMC: 10234959. DOI: 10.1007/s00117-023-01150-7.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy - Shining the Light through the Colon.

Tai F, McAlindon M, Sidhu R Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2023; 25(5):99-105.

PMID: 37022665 DOI: 10.1007/s11894-023-00867-8.

CT colonography: can we achieve an adequate bowel preparation without diet restriction?.

Rengo M, Tiberia F, Vicini S, Bellini D, Celestre M, Trionfera G Eur Radiol. 2023; 33(7):5184-5192.

PMID: 36806568 PMC: 10289920. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09471-w.

References

Mang T, Schima W, Brownstone E, Gschwantler M, Tscholakoff D, Weiss W . [Consensus statement of the Austrian Society of Radiology, the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and the Austrian Society of Surgery on CT colonography (Virtual Colonoscopy)]. Rofo. 2011; 183(2):177-84. DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1245957. View

Regge D, Hassan C, Pickhardt P, Laghi A, Zullo A, Kim D . Impact of computer-aided detection on the cost-effectiveness of CT colonography. Radiology. 2009; 250(2):488-97. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2502080685. View

Liedenbaum M, de Vries A, Gouw C, van Rijn A, Bipat S, Dekker E . CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes. Eur Radiol. 2009; 20(2):367-76. PMC: 2814044. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1570-8. View

Shinners T, Pickhardt P, Taylor A, Jones D, Olsen C . Patient-controlled room air insufflation versus automated carbon dioxide delivery for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 186(6):1491-6. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0416. View

Mang T, Kolligs F, Schaefer C, Reiser M, Graser A . Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and interpretation times for a standard and an advanced 3D visualisation technique in CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2010; 21(3):653-62. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1953-x. View

Taylor S, Laghi A, Lefere P, Halligan S, Stoker J . European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2006; 17(2):575-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0407-y. View

Jeong J, Kim M, Kim S . Manual and automated polyp measurement comparison of CT colonography with optical colonoscopy. Acad Radiol. 2008; 15(2):231-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2007.10.006. View

Buchach C, Kim D, Pickhardt P . Performing an additional decubitus series at CT colonography. Abdom Imaging. 2010; 36(5):538-44. PMC: 5514551. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-010-9666-9. View

Pickhardt P . Editorial: CTC interpretation by gastroenterologists: feasible but largely impractical, undesirable, and misguided. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104(12):2932-4. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.463. View

10.

Johnson C, Chen M, Toledano A, Heiken J, Dachman A, Kuo M . Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(12):1207-17. PMC: 2654614. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0800996. View

11.

Gryspeerdt S, Herman M, Baekelandt M, van Holsbeeck B, Lefere P . Supine/left decubitus scanning: a valuable alternative to supine/prone scanning in CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2004; 14(5):768-77. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2264-x. View

12.

de Vries A, Jensch S, Liedenbaum M, Florie J, Nio C, Truyen R . Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?. Eur Radiol. 2008; 19(4):941-50. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1215-3. View

13.

Boone D, Halligan S, Frost R, Kay C, Laghi A, Lefere P . CT colonography: who attends training? A survey of participants at educational workshops. Clin Radiol. 2011; 66(6):510-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2010.12.012. View

14.

Mang T, Graser A, Schima W, Maier A . CT colonography: techniques, indications, findings. Eur J Radiol. 2007; 61(3):388-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.11.019. View

15.

Carpenter S . Gastroenterologists should read CT colonography. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2010; 20(2):271-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.giec.2010.02.006. View

16.

Gryspeerdt S, Lefere P, Herman M, Deman R, Rutgeerts L, Ghillebert G . CT colonography with fecal tagging after incomplete colonoscopy. Eur Radiol. 2005; 15(6):1192-202. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-005-2644-x. View

17.

Petrick N, Haider M, Summers R, Yeshwant S, Brown L, Iuliano E . CT colonography with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study. Radiology. 2007; 246(1):148-56. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2453062161. View

18.

Lostumbo A, Wanamaker C, Tsai J, Suzuki K, Dachman A . Comparison of 2D and 3D views for evaluation of flat lesions in CT colonography. Acad Radiol. 2009; 17(1):39-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.07.004. View

19.

Zalis M, Barish M, Choi J, Dachman A, Fenlon H, Ferrucci J . CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology. 2005; 236(1):3-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2361041926. View

20.

Liedenbaum M, Denters M, de Vries A, van Ravesteijn V, Bipat S, Vos F . Low-fiber diet in limited bowel preparation for CT colonography: Influence on image quality and patient acceptance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 195(1):W31-7. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3572. View