Integration of CTC into a CRC Screening Program



Screening for colorectal neoplasms has become the standard of care in advanced medical settings worldwide [1–7]. Identifying asymptomatic colorectal neoplastic lesions has been shown to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and the overall cost of medical care. Clinicians have several alternatives at their disposal as they consider screening for their respective patient population. Many organizations have devoted considerable time weighing the evidence to establish appropriate evidence-based guidelines directing clinicians with methods to appropriately manage screening. CT colonoscopy and optical colonoscopy (OC) are viable alternatives for CRC screening. Organizations that plan to utilize both modalities must consider multiple issues to effectively integrate and ensure a high-quality screening program.


Bowel Preparation Adenoma Detection Rate Optical Colonoscopy Cecal Intubation Withdrawal Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:739–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer Advisory Group; US Multi-Society Task Force; American College of Radiology Colon Cancer Committee. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:1570–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klabunde CN, Lanier D, Nadel MR, et al. Colorectal cancer screening by primary care physicians: recommendations and practices, 2006–2007. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37:8–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rex DK, Sledge G, Harper P, et al. Colonic neoplasia in asymptomatic persons with negative fecal occult blood tests: influence of age, gender, and family history. Am J Gastroenterol. 1993;88:825–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lynch KL, Ahnen DJ, Byers T, et al. First-degree relatives of patients with advanced colorectal adenomas have an increased prevalence of colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003;1:96–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, et al. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:162–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, et al. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case–control study. Ann Int Med. 2011;154(1):22–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brenner H, Haug U, Volker A, et al. Low risk of colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas more than 10 years after negative colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2010;138(3):87–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS, et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:65–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:873–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen SC, Rex DK. Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:856–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2533–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cotton PB, Connor P, McGee D, et al. Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:352–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:343–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harris JK, Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, et al. Factors associated with the technical performance of colonoscopy: an EPAGE Study. Dig Liver Dis. 2007;39:678–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1795–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gurudu SR, Ratuapli SK, Leighton JA, et al. Adenoma detection rate is not influenced by timing of colonoscopy when performed in half-day blocks. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1466–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee A, Iskander JM, Gupta N, et al. Queue position in the endoscopic schedule impacts effectiveness of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1457–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chan MY, Cohen H, Spiegel B. Fewer polyps detected by colonoscopy as the day progresses at a veteran’s administration teaching hospital. Clin Gastroentrol Hepatol. 2009;7(11):1217–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sanaka MR, Deepinder F, Thota PN, et al. Adenomas are detected more often in morning than in afternoon colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:1659–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gaba DM, Howard SK. Patient safety: fatigue among clinicians and the safety of patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1249–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Summers R. The elephant in the room: bowel preparation for CT colonography. Acad Radiol. 2009;16:777–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lebwohl B, Kastrios F, Glick M, et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(6):1207–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:76–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers J-J, et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:378–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sharma VK, Chockalingham SK, Ugheoke EA, et al. Prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of the use of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution in four-liter versus two-liter volumes and pretreatment with either magnesium citrate or bisacodyl for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;47:167–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronisch H-J, et al. Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:883–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Desmeules S, Bergeron MJ, Isenring P. Acute phosphate nephropathy and renal failure. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1006–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Carl DE, Sica DA. Acute phosphate nephropathy following colonoscopy preparation. Am J Med Sci. 2007;334(3):151–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rex DK, DiPalma JA, Rodriguez R, et al. A randomized clinical study comparing reduced-volume oral sulfate solution with standard 4-liter sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solution as preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(2):328–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cohen LB. Split dosing of bowel preparations for colonoscopy: an analysis of its efficacy, safety, and tolerability. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(2):406–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Siddiqui AA, Yang K, Spechler SJ, et al. Duration of the interval between the completion of bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy predicts bowel-preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69 Suppl 3:700–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Church JM. Effectiveness of polyethylene glycol antegrade gut lavage bowel preparation for colonoscopy – timing is the key! Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41:1223–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Int Med. 2011;154(1):222–30.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Aoun E, Abdul-Baki H, Azar C, et al. A randomized single-blind trial of split-dose PEG-electrolyte solution without dietary restriction compared with whole dose PEG-electrolyte solution with dietary restriction for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:213–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chiu H-M, Lin J-T, Wang H-P, et al. The impact of colon preparation timing on colonoscopic detection of colorectal neoplasms – a prospective endoscopist-blinded randomized trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2719–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cohen LB, Kastenberg DM, Mount DB, et al. Current issues in optimal bowel preparation: excerpts from a roundtable discussion among colon-cleansing experts. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;5 Suppl 20:1–11.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of intervention studies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(3):656–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Imperiale TF, Blowinski EA, Juliar BE, et al. Variation in polyp detection rates at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(7):1288–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lin OS, Kozarek RA, Arai A, et al. The effect of periodic monitoring and feedback on screening colonoscopy withdrawal times, polyp detection rates, and patient satisfaction scores. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71(7):1253–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cohen L, Delaney P, Boston P. Listening to the customer: implementing a patient satisfaction measurement system. Gastroenterol Nurs. 1994;17:110–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Denis B, Weiss AM, Peter A, et al. Quality assurance and gastrointestinal endoscopy: an audit of 500 colonoscopic procedures. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2004;28:1245–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lin OS, Schembre DB, Ayub K, et al. Patient satisfaction scores for endoscopic procedures: impact of a survey-collection method. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:775–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pickhardt PJ, Hanson ME, Vanness DJ, et al. Unsuspected extra-colonic findings at screening CT colonography: clinical and economic impact. Radiology. 2008;249:151–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology. 2005;236:3–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Volk M, Ubel PA. Less is more. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(6):487–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wang TC, Cominelli F, Fleischer DE, et al. AGA Institute Future Trends Committee report: the future of gastroenterology training programs in the United States. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1764–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pickhardt P, Arluk G. Increasing exposure of gastroenterology fellows to abdominal imaging. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(1):135–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Young PE, Ray QP, Hwang I, et al. Gastroenterologists’ interpretation of CTC: a pilot study demonstrating feasibility and similar accuracy compared to radiologists’ interpretation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2926–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rockey D, Barish M, Brill J, et al. CT colonography standards: standards for gastroenterologists for performing and interpreting diagnostic computed tomographic colonography. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:1005–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    ACR practice guideline for the performance of computed tomography (CT) colonography in adults. Accessed 1 Oct 2011.
  53. 53.
    Duncan J, Ugochukwu ON, Sweeney WB, et al. Key features of an efficient colorectal cancer screening program based on CT colonography. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(4):AB141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hur C, Gazelle GS, Zalis ME, et al. An analysis of the potential impact of computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy) on colonoscopy demand. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1312–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schwartz DC, Dasher KJ, Said A, et al. Impact of a CT colonography screening program on endoscopic colonoscopy in clinical practice. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:346–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Benson ME, Pier J, Kraft S, et al. Impact of a CT colonography colorectal cancer screening program on optical colonoscopy: 5 year data. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71(5):AB129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ladabaum U, Song K. Projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening on clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1151–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH. CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a practical approach for population screening. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:361–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Cost-effectiveness of CT colonography to screen for colorectal cancer. Accessed 21 Aug 2011.
  60. 60.
    McHugh M, Osei-Anto A, Klabunde CN, Galen BA. Adoption of CT colonography by US hospitals. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011;8(3):169–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    California Technology Assessment Forum. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy) for colorectal cancer screening in average risk individuals. Accessed 21 Aug 2011.
  62. 62.
    Knudsen AB, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Rutter CM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1238–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rockey DC. Computed tomographic colonography: current perspectives and future directions. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:7–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mergener K. The role of CT colonography in a colorectal cancer screening program. Gastrointest Endosc Clin North Am. 2010;20(2):367–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1207–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pickhardt PJ. CTC interpretation by gastroenterologists: feasible but largely impractical, undesirable, and misguided. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2932–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Chin M, Mendelson R, Edwards J, et al. Computed tomographic colonography: prevalence, nature, and clinical significance of extracolonic findings in a community screening program. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:2771–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Update on CT colonography. Technology Status Evaluation Report. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(3)393–98.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:1091–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mercer University School of MedicineSavannahUSA
  2. 2.Department of Internal MedicineMemorial University Medical CenterSavannahUSA

Personalised recommendations