Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CT colonography: role in FOBT-based screening programs for colorectal cancer

  • Clinical Review
  • Published:
Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive imaging examination for the colon, and is safe, well tolerated and accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma. While the role of CTC as a primary test for population screening of CRC is under investigation, the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) has been recommended for population screening of CRC in Europe. Subjects with positive FOBT are invited to undergo total colonoscopy, which has some critical issues, such as suboptimal compliance, contraindications and the possibility of an incomplete exploration of the colon. Based on available data, the integration of CTC in FOBT-based population screening programs for CRC may fall into three scenarios. First, CTC is recommended in FOBT-positive subjects when colonoscopy is refused, incomplete or contraindicated. For these indications CTC should replace double-contrast barium enema. Second, conversely, CTC is not currently recommended as a second-level examination prior to colonoscopy in all FOBT-positive subjects, as this strategy is most probably not cost-effective. Finally, CTC may be considered instead of colonoscopy for surveillance after adenoma removal, but specific studies are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1374–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ciccolallo L, Capocaccia R, Coleman MP, et al. Survival differences between European and US patients with colorectal cancer: role of stage at diagnosis and surgery. Gut. 2005;54:268–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:594–642.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Segnan N, Patnik J, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. 1st ed. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota colon cancer control study. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1365–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348:1472–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, et al. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. 1996;348:1467–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Saito H, Soma Y, Koeda J, et al. Reduction in risk of mortality by fecal occult blood screening with immunochemical hemagglutination test. A case-control study. Int J Cancer. 1995;61:465–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ventura L, Mantellini P, Grazzini G, et al. The impact of immunochemical faecal occult blood testing on colorectal cancer incidence. Dig Liver Dis. 2014;46:82–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Giorgi Rossi P, Vicentini M, Sacchettini C, et al. Impact of screening program on incidence of colorectal cancer: a cohort study in Italy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:1359–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Castiglione G, Zappa M, Grazzini G, et al. Immunochemical vs guaiac faecal occult blood tests in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 1996;74:141–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Van Rossum LG, van Rijn AF, Laheij RJ, et al. Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:82–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zorzi M, Baracco S, Fedato C, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer in Italy, 2009 survey. Epidemiol Prev. 2011;35:55–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weller D, Coleman D, Robertson R, et al. The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England. Br J Cancer. 2007;97:1601–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, et al. Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection—systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2011;259:393–405.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Sosna J, Morrin MM, Kruskal JB, et al. CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:1593–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL. Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:635–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosman AS, Korsten MA. Meta-analysis comparing CT colonography, air contrast barium enema, and colonoscopy. Am J Med. 2007;120:203–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA, et al. CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology. 2005;237:893–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chaparro M, Gisbert JP, Del Campo L, et al. Accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of polyps and colorectal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Digestion. 2009;80:1–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Halligan S, Wooldrage K, Dadswell E, et al. Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381:1185–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. von Wagner C, Smith S, Halligan S, et al. Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:2046–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, Gouw CI, et al. CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:367–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, et al. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology. 2003;227:378–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bellini D, Rengo M, De Cecco CN, et al. Perforation rate in CT colonography: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:1487–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, et al. Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a multicenter controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:55–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sali L, Mascalchi M, Falchini M, et al. Reduced and full-preparation CT colonography, fecal immunochemical test, and colonoscopy for population screening of colorectal cancer: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108:djv319. doi:10.1093/jnci/djv319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Regge D, Iussich G, Segnan N, et al. Comparing CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomised trial within a population-based screening programme. Gut. 2016;. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2015-311278.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. van Roosbroeck S, Hoeck S, Van Hal G. Population-based screening for colorectal cancer using an immunochemical faecal occult blood test: a comparison of two invitation strategies. Cancer Epidemiol. 2012;36:e317–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. van Roon AHC, Hol L, van Vuuren AJ, et al. Are fecal immunochemical test characteristics influenced by sample return time? A population-based colorectal cancer screening trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:99–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Moss SM, Campbell C, Melia J, et al. Performance measures in three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening pilot. Gut. 2012;61:101–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Peris M, Espinàs JA, Muñoz L, et al. Lessons learnt from a population-based pilot programme for colorectal cancer screening in Catalonia (Spain). J Med Screen. 2007;14:81–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Baig N, Myers RE, Turner BR, et al. Physician-reported reasons for limited follow-up of patients with a positive fecal occult blood test screening results. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:2078–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Li CM, Shiu MN, Chia SL, et al. Factors associated with referral compliance of abnormal immunochemical faecal occult blood test. J Med Screen. 2007;14:186–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zheng YF, Saito T, Takahashi M, et al. Factors associated with intentions to adhere to colorectal cancer screening follow-up exams. BMC Public Health. 2006;6:272.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Sali L, Grazzini G, Ventura L, et al. Computed tomographic colonography in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test refusing optical colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis. 2013;45:285–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C, et al. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut. 2004;53:277–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Rathgaber SW, Wick TM. Colonoscopy completion and complication rates in a community gastroenterology practice. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:556–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, et al. Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:2297–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Neerincx M, sive Terhaar Droste JS, Mulder JJ, et al. Colonic work-up after incomplete colonoscopy: significant new findings during follow-up. Endoscopy. 2010;42:730–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sosna J, Sella T, Sy O, et al. Critical analysis of the performance of double-contrast barium enema for detecting colorectal polyps ≥6 mm in the era of CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:374–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sali L, Falchini M, Bonanomi AG, et al. CT colonography after incomplete colonoscopy in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:4499–504.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Yucel C, Lev-Toaff AS, Moussa N, et al. CT colonography for incomplete or contraindicated optical colonoscopy in older patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:145–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Anderson ML, Pasha TM, Leighton JA. Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:3418–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J, et al. CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:146–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Liedenbaum MH, van Rijn AF, de Vries AH, et al. Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 2009;58:1242–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of advanced neoplasia in individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2009;301:2453–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sali L, Falchini M, Della Monica P, et al. CT colonography before colonoscopy in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test. Preliminary experience. Radiol Med. 2010;115:1267–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Heresbach D, Djabbari M, Riou F, et al. Accuracy of computed tomographic colonography in nationwide multicenter trial, and its relation to radiologist expertise. Gut. 2011;60:658–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Plumb AA, Halligan S, Pendsé DA, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography for the detection of colonic neoplasia after positive faecal occult blood testing: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:1049–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Plumb AA, Halligan S, Nickerson C, et al. Use of CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut. 2014;63:964–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pickhardt PJ, Hanson ME, Vanness DJ, et al. Unsuspected extracolonic findings at screening CT colonography: clinical and economic impact. Radiology. 2008;249:151–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Martínez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA, et al. A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:832–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:24–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O’Brien MJ, et al. Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:901–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Yood MU, Oliveria S, Boyer JG, et al. Colon polyp recurrence in a managed care population. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:422–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Lieberman DA, Holub J, Eisen G, et al. Utilization of colonoscopy in the United States: results from a national consortium. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:875–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tutein Nolthenius CJ, Boellaard TN, de Haan MC, et al. Evolution of screen detected small (6–9 mm) polyps after a 3-year surveillance interval: assessment of growth with CT colonography compared with histopathology. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:1682–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Greuter MJ, Berkhof J, Fijneman RJ, et al. The potential of imaging techniques as a screening tool for colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20150910. doi:10.1259/bjr.20150910.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Spada C, Stoker J, Alarcon O, et al. Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:331–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM, et al. Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315:2595–609.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences “Mario Serio”, University of Florence, Viale Morgagni 50, 50134, Florence, Italy

    Lapo Sali & Mario Mascalchi

  2. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute (ISPO), Via Cosimo il Vecchio 2, 50139, Florence, Italy

    Grazia Grazzini

Authors
  1. Lapo Sali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grazia Grazzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mario Mascalchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lapo Sali.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Lapo Sali, Grazia Grazzini and Mario Mascalchi declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human rights

This study does not include any data about human subjects.

Informed consent

This study does not involve human subjects and giving informed consent does not apply.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sali, L., Grazzini, G. & Mascalchi, M. CT colonography: role in FOBT-based screening programs for colorectal cancer. Clin J Gastroenterol 10, 312–319 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12328-017-0744-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12328-017-0744-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation