Display options
Share it on

J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Apr;9(4):TC14-8. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12686.5853. Epub 2015 Apr 01.

Role of CT Colonography in Colonic Lesions and Its Correlation with Conventional Colonoscopic Findings.

Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR

Kunwarpal Singh, Aparna Kaur Narula, Chuni Lal Thukral, Neeti Rajan Singh, Amandeep Singh, Harmeet Kaur

Affiliations

  1. Assistant Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research , Vallah, Amritsar, India .
  2. Post Graduate, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research , Vallah, Amritsar, India .
  3. Professor and Head, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research , Vallah, Amritsar, India .
  4. Professor, Department of Surgery, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research , Vallah, Amritsar, India .
  5. Senior Resident, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research , Vallah, Amritsar, India .

PMID: 26023619 PMCID: PMC4437135 DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12686.5853

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preoperative evaluation in patients with colorectal carcinoma is essential for a correct therapeutic plan. Conventional colonoscopy has certain limitations including its inability to detect synchronous lesions in case of distal obstructive mass and inaccurate tumour localization. CT colonography combines cross sectional imaging with virtual colonoscopic images and offers a comprehensive preoperative evaluation in patients with colorectal carcinoma including detection of synchronous lesions with accurate segmental localization and loco regional staging.

AIM: The objective was to determine the role of CT colonography in various colonic lesions and to correlate the findings with conventional colonoscopy and histopathological findings.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This prospective study included 50 patients with clinical symptoms suspicious of colonic pathology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: All the patients underwent both CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy on the same day. CT colonography was performed in supine and prone position. Considering histopathological and/or surgical findings as gold standard, sensitivity and specificity of both the modalities were calculated.

RESULTS: Conventional colonoscopy missed two synchronous lesions proximal to occlusive mass and one lesion proximal to the anastomotic site; all were detected with CT colonography. One carpet lesion in rectum and one case of mild ulcerative colitis were missed by CT colonography. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of colorectal cancer were 97.56% and 100%, resp. with PPV and NPV of 100% and 93.75%, for CT colonography and 92.68% and 100%, respectively with PPV and NPV of 100% and 83.3% for conventional colonoscopy. Sensitivity for correct detection of acute and chronic ulcerative colitis of CT colonography was 66.6 % and 100 %, resp.

CONCLUSION: CT colonography has higher sensitivity than conventional colonoscopy for detection of colorectal carcinoma, including its ability to detect abnormalities proximal to obstructing lesion, accurate segmental localization of lesions and staging. However, some limitations of CT colonography were difficulty in detection of flat lesions and lack of information about hyperemia and superficial mucosal erosion, where conventional colonoscopy scored over CT colonography.

Keywords: Colorectal Carcinoma; Ulcerative colitis; Virtual colonoscopy

References

  1. Eur Radiol. 2005 Jun;15(6):1192-202 - PubMed
  2. Radiology. 2011 May;259(2):393-405 - PubMed
  3. Abdom Imaging. 2010 Oct;35(5):589-95 - PubMed
  4. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1978 Oct;131(4):691-5 - PubMed
  5. Gastroenterology. 2007 Sep;133(3):1005-24 - PubMed
  6. Radiology. 2004 Apr;231(1):83-90 - PubMed
  7. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jan;184(1):98-103 - PubMed
  8. BMJ. 1999 Nov 6;319(7219):1249-52 - PubMed
  9. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984 Aug;143(2):279-84 - PubMed
  10. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Apr 14;20(14 ):3795-803 - PubMed
  11. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Apr;172(4):913-8 - PubMed
  12. Arch Surg. 2005 Oct;140(10):932-5 - PubMed
  13. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Mar;172(3):595-9 - PubMed
  14. Radiology. 2005 Dec;237(3):893-904 - PubMed
  15. Eur J Radiol. 2013 Aug;82(8):1192-200 - PubMed
  16. Radiologe. 2003 Jan;43(1):17-25 - PubMed
  17. Eur J Radiol. 2006 Apr;58(1):140-6 - PubMed
  18. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Jan;190(1):145-50 - PubMed
  19. Radiology. 2002 Jun;223(3):615-9 - PubMed

Publication Types