nach oben

Erschienen in:

26.10.2020 | Guideline

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline – Update 2020

verfasst von: Cristiano Spada, Cesare Hassan, Davide Bellini, David Burling, Giovanni Cappello, Cristina Carretero, Evelien Dekker, Rami Eliakim, Margriet de Haan, Michal F. Kaminski, Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Andrea Laghi, Philippe Lefere, Thomas Mang, Sebastian Manuel Milluzzo, Martina Morrin, Deirdre McNamara, Emanuele Neri, Silvia Pecere, Mathieu Pioche, Andrew Plumb, Emanuele Rondonotti, Manon CW Spaander, Stuart Taylor, Ignacio Fernandez-Urien, Jeanin E. van Hooft, Jaap Stoker, Daniele Regge

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 5/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Main recommendations

1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence.

7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence.

8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6–9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Source and scope

This is an update of the 2014–15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I et al (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424PubMed

Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al (1993) Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 329:1977–1981PubMed

Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Jansen L et al (2014) Reduced risk of colorectal cancer up to 10 years after screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 146:709–717PubMed

Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al (2012) Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 366:687–696PubMedPubMedCentral

Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA et al (2017) Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 112:1016–1030PubMed

Doubeni CA, Weinmann S, Adams K et al (2013) Screening colonoscopy and risk for incident late-stage colorectal cancer diagnosis in average-risk adults: a nested case-control study. Ann Intern Med 158(5 Pt 1):312–320PubMedPubMedCentral

Khalid-de Bakker C, Jonkers D, Smits K et al (2011) Participation in colorectal cancer screening trials after first-time invitation: a systematic review. Endoscopy 43:1059–1086PubMed

Vining D, Galfand D, Bechtold R (1994) Technical feasibility of colon imaging with helical CT and virtual reality [abstract]. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162:104

Neri E, Halligan S, Hellström M et al (2013) The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 23:720–729PubMed

10.

Eliakim R, Fireman Z, Gralnek IM et al (2006) Evaluation of the PillCam Colon capsule in the detection of colonic pathology: results of the first multicenter, prospective, comparative study. Endoscopy 38:963–970PubMed

11.

Spada C, Stoker J, Alarcon O et al (2015) Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) guideline. Eur Radiol 25:331–345PubMed

12.

Spada C, Hassan C, Galmiche JP et al (2012) Colon capsule endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 44:527–536PubMed

13.

Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J et al (1995) The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 123:A12–A13PubMed

14.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926PubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA et al (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328:1490. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490CrossRefPubMed

16.

Dumonceau J-M, Hassan C, Riphaus A et al (2012) European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline development policy. Endoscopy 44:626–629PubMed

17.

Sali L, Mascalchi M, Falchini M et al (2015) Reduced and full-preparation CT colonography, fecal immunochemical test, and colonoscopy for population screening of colorectal cancer: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 108:djv319PubMed

18.

Regge D, Iussich G, Segnan N et al (2017) Comparing CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomised trial within a population-based screening programme. Gut 66:1434–1440PubMed

19.

Nolthenius CJT, Boellaard TN, de Haan MC et al (2015) Evolution of screen-detected small (6–9 mm) polyps after a 3-year surveillance interval: assessment of growth with CT colonography compared with histopathology. A J Gastroenterol 110:1682–1690

20.

Obaro AE, Plumb AA, Fanshawe TR et al (2018) Post-imaging colorectal cancer or interval cancer rates after CT colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:326–336PubMed

21.

Nagata K, Endo S, Honda T et al (2017) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of polypoid and non-polypoid neoplasia by gastroenterologists and radiologists: a nationwide multicenter study in Japan. Am J Gastroenterol 112:163–171PubMed

22.

Halligan S, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K et al (2015) Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer in older symptomatic patients: two multicenter randomised trials with economic evaluation (the SIGGAR trials). Health Technol Assess 19:1–134PubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Maaser C, Sturm A, Vavricka SR et al (2019) ECCO-ESGAR guideline for diagnostic assessment in IBD part 1: initial diagnosis, monitoring of known IBD, detection of complications. J Crohns Colitis 13:144–164PubMed

24.

Flor N, Mezzanzanica M, Rigamonti P et al (2013) Contrast-enhanced computed tomography colonography in preoperative distinction between T1-T2 and T3-T4 staging of colon cancer. Acad Radiol 20:590–595PubMed

25.

Horvat N, Raj A, Ward JM et al (2018) Clinical value of CT colonography versus preoperative colonoscopy in the surgical management of occlusive colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:333–340PubMed

26.

Flor N, Zanchetta E, Di Leo G et al (2018) Synchronous colorectal cancer using CT colonography vs. other means: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol 43:3241–3249

27.

Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K et al (2013) Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 381:1194–1202PubMed

28.

Poston GJ, Tait D, O’Connell S et al (2011) Diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 343:d6751–d6751PubMed

29.

O’Shea A, Foran A, Murray T et al (2020) Quality of same day CT colonography following incomplete optical colonoscopy. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06979-3

30.

Chang KJ, Rekhi SS, Anderson SW et al (2011) Fluid tagging for CT colonography: effectiveness of a 2-hour iodinated oral preparation after incomplete optical colonoscopy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:91–95PubMed

31.

Theis J, Kim DH, Lubner MG et al. CT colonography after incomplete optical colonoscopy: bowel preparation quality at same-day vs. deferred examination. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016; 41: 10–18

32.

Saluja S, Gaikstas G, Sapundzieski M (2017) Optimal timing for faecal tagging in same day CT colonography for patients with failed colonoscopy. Radiography (Lond) 23:e47–e49

33.

O’Shea A, Murray T, Morrin MM et al (2020) Incidence of clinically significant perforation at low dose non-contrast CT and its value prior to same day CT colonography following incomplete colonoscopy. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45:1044–1048

34.

Lara LF, Avalos D, Huynh H et al (2015) The safety of same-day CT colonography following incomplete colonoscopy with polypectomy. United European Gastroenterol J 3:358–363PubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Baltes P, Bota M, Albert J et al (2018) PillCamColon2 after incomplete colonoscopy - a prospective multicenter study. World J Gastroenterol 24:3556–3566PubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Hussey M, Holleran G, Stack R et al (2018) Same-day colon capsule endoscopy is a viable means to assess unexplored colonic segments after incomplete colonoscopy in selected patients. United European Gastroenterol J 6:1556–1562PubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Nogales Ó, García-Lledó J, Luján M et al (2017) Therapeutic impact of colon capsule endoscopy with PillCam™ COLON 2 after incomplete standard colonoscopy: a Spanish multicenter study. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 109:322–327PubMed

38.

Toth E, Yung DE, Nemeth A et al (2017) Video capsule colonoscopy in routine clinical practice. Ann Transl Med 5:195–195PubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Spada C, Hassan C, Barbaro B et al (2015) Colon capsule versus CT colonography in patients with incomplete colonoscopy: a prospective, comparative trial. Gut. 64:272–281PubMed

40.

Negreanu L, Smarandache G, Mateescu RB (2014) Role of capsule endoscopy Pillcam COLON 2 in patients with known or suspected Crohn’s disease who refused colonoscopy or underwent incomplete colonoscopic exam: a case series. Tech Coloproctol 18:277–283PubMed

41.

Negreanu L, Babiuc R, Bengus A et al (2013) PillCam Colon 2 capsule in patients unable or unwilling to undergo colonoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 5:559–567PubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Triantafyllou K, Viazis N, Tsibouris P et al (2014) Colon capsule endoscopy is feasible to perform after incomplete colonoscopy and guides further workup in clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 79:307–316PubMed

43.

Alarcón-Fernández O, Ramos L, Adrián-de-Ganzo Z et al (2013) Effects of colon capsule endoscopy on medical decision making in patients with incomplete colonoscopies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 11:534–540.e1PubMed

44.

Pioche M, de Leusse A, Filoche B et al (2012) Prospective multicenter evaluation of colon capsule examination indicated by colonoscopy failure or anesthesia contraindication. Endoscopy 44:911–916PubMed

45.

Jellema P, van der Windt DAWM, Bruinvels DJ et al (2010) Value of symptoms and additional diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 340:c1269PubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Pickhardt PJ, Correale L, Delsanto S et al (2018) CT colonography performance for the detection of polyps and cancer in adults ≥65 years old: systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211:40–51PubMed

47.

Pickhardt PJ, Correale L, Morra L et al (2018) Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211:25–39PubMed

48.

Halligan S, Wooldrage K, Dadswell E et al (2015) Identification of extracolonic pathologies by computed tomographic colonography in colorectal cancer symptomatic patients. Gastroenterology 149:89–101.e5PubMed

49.

Cha JM, Kozarek RA, La Selva D et al (2016) Risks and benefits of colonoscopy in patients 90 years or older, compared with younger patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 14:80–86.e1PubMed

50.

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

51.

Sali L, Regge D (2016) CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials. Br J Radiol 89:20160517PubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Senore C, Correale L, Regge D et al (2018) Flexible sigmoidoscopy and CT colonography screening: patients’ experience with and factors for undergoing screening-insight from the PROTEUS colon trial. Radiology 286:873–883PubMed

53.

Tutein Nolthenius CJ, Boellaard TN, de Haan MC et al (2016) Computer tomography colonography participation and yield in patients under surveillance for 6–9 mm polyps in a population-based screening trial. Eur Radiol 26:2762–2770PubMed

54.

Leggett B, Whitehall V (2010) Role of the serrated pathway in colorectal cancer pathogenesis. Gastroenterology 138:2088–2100PubMed

55.

Sali L, Ventura L, Grazzini G et al (2019) Patients’ experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial. Eur Radiol 29:2457–2464PubMed

56.

Pendsé DA, Taylor SA (2013) Complications of CT colonography: a review. Eur J Radiol 82:1159–1165PubMed

57.

Plumb AA, Ghanouni A, Rees CJ et al (2017) Patient experience of CT colonography and colonoscopy after fecal occult blood test in a national screening programme. Eur Radiol 27:1052–1063PubMed

58.

Nagata K, Takabayashi K, Yasuda T et al (2017) Adverse events during CT colonography for screening, diagnosis and preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: a Japanese national survey. Eur Radiol 27:4970–4978PubMed

59.

Bellini D, Rengo M, De Cecco CN et al (2014) Perforation rate in CT colonography: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 24:1487–1496PubMed

60.

Holme Ø, Bretthauer M, Fretheim A et al (2013) Flexible sigmoidoscopy versus faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD009259

61.

Kang H-J, Kim SH, Shin C-I et al (2018) Sub-millisievert CT colonography: effect of knowledge-based iterative reconstruction on the detection of colonic polyps. Eur Radiol 28:5258–5266PubMed

62.

Chin M, Mendelson R, Edwards J et al (2005) Computed tomographic colonography: prevalence, nature, and clinical significance of extracolonic findings in a community screening program. Am J Gastroenterol 100:2771–2776PubMed

63.

Veerappan GR, Ally MR, Choi J-HR et al (2010) Extracolonic findings on CT colonography increases yield of colorectal cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:677–686PubMed

64.

Kim YS, Kim N, Kim SY et al (2008) Extracolonic findings in an asymptomatic screening population undergoing intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography colonography. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 23(7 Pt 2):e49–e57PubMed

65.

de Haan MC, Thomeer M, Stoker J et al (2013) Unit costs in population-based colorectal cancer screening using CT colonography performed in university hospitals in the Netherlands. Eur Radiol 23:897–907PubMed

66.

Mantellini P, Lippi G, Sali L et al (2018) Cost analysis of colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography in Italy. Eur J Health Econ 19:735–746PubMed

67.

van der Meulen MP, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Goede SL et al (2018) Colorectal cancer: cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy versus CT colonography screening with participation rates and costs. Radiology 287:901–911PubMed

68.

Ran T, Cheng C-Y, Misselwitz B et al (2019) Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening strategies – a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 17:1969–1981.e15PubMed

69.

Kobaek-Larsen M, Kroijer R, Dyrvig A-K et al (2018) Back-to-back colon capsule endoscopy and optical colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening individuals. Color Dis 20:479–485

70.

Pioche M, Ganne C, Gincul R et al (2018) Colon capsule versus computed tomography colonography for colorectal cancer screening in patients with positive fecal occult blood test who refuse colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Endoscopy 50:761–769PubMed

71.

Thygesen MK, Baatrup G, Petersen C et al (2019) Screening individuals’ experiences of colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy; a mixed methods study. Acta Oncol 58(sup1):S71–S76PubMed

72.

Rex DK, Adler SN, Aisenberg J et al (2015) Accuracy of capsule colonoscopy in detecting colorectal polyps in a screening population. Gastroenterology 148:948–957.e2PubMed

73.

Cash BD, Fleisher MR, Fern S et al (2019) A multicenter, prospective, randomized study comparing the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy versus computed tomographic colonography in a screening population. Results of the TOPAZ study. Gastrointest Endosc 89:AB87–AB88

74.

Parodi A, Vanbiervliet G, Hassan C et al (2018) Colon capsule endoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in those with family histories of colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 87:695–704PubMed

75.

Adrián-de-Ganzo Z, Alarcón-Fernández O, Ramos L et al (2015) Uptake of colon capsule endoscopy vs colonoscopy for screening relatives of patients with colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 13:2293–2301.e1PubMed

76.

Plumb AA, Halligan S, Pendsé DA et al (2014) 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 24:1049–1058PubMed

77.

Rondonotti E, Borghi C, Mandelli G et al (2014) Accuracy of capsule colonoscopy and computed tomographic colonography in individuals with positive results from the fecal occult blood test. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 12:1303–1310PubMed

78.

Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Zauber AG et al (2009) At what costs will screening with CT colonography be competitive? A cost-effectiveness approach. Int J Cancer 124:1161–1168PubMedPubMedCentral

79.

Sali L, Grazzini G, Ventura L et al (2013) Computed tomographic colonography in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test refusing optical colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 45:285–289PubMed

80.

Plumb AA, Halligan S, Nickerson C et al (2014) Use of CT colonography in the English bowel Cancer screening Programme. Gut 63:964–973PubMed

81.

Derbyshire E, Hungin P, Nickerson C et al (2018) Colonoscopic perforations in the English national health service bowel Cancer screening Programme. Endoscopy 50:861–870PubMed

82.

Holleran G, Leen R, O’Morain C et al (2014) Colon capsule endoscopy as possible filter test for colonoscopy selection in a screening population with positive fecal immunology. Endoscopy 46:473–478PubMed

83.

Pecere S, Senore C, Hassan C et al (2020) Accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for advanced neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 91:406–414.e1PubMed

84.

Porté F, Uppara M, Malietzis G et al (2017) CT colonography for surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy. Eur Radiol 27:51–60PubMed

85.

Amitai MM, Fidder H, Avidan B et al (2009) Contrast-enhanced CT colonography with 64-slice MDCT compared to endoscopic colonoscopy in the follow-up of patients after colorectal cancer resection. Clin Imaging 33:433–438PubMed

86.

Kim HJ, Park SH, Pickhardt PJ et al (2010) CT colonography for combined colonic and extracolonic surveillance after curative resection of colorectal cancer. Radiology 257:697–704PubMed

87.

Neri E, Vagli P, Turini F et al (2010) Post-surgical follow-up of colorectal cancer: role of contrast-enhanced CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 35:669–675PubMed

88.

Weinberg DS, Pickhardt PJ, Bruining DH et al (2018) Computed tomography colonography vs colonoscopy for colorectal cancer surveillance after surgery. Gastroenterology 154:927–934.e4PubMed

89.

Weinberg DS, Mitnick J, Keenan E et al (2019) Post-operative colorectal cancer surveillance: preference for optical colonoscopy over computerized tomographic colonography. Cancer Causes Control 30:1269–1273PubMedPubMedCentral

90.

Beck JR, Ross EA, Kuntz KM et al (2018) Yield and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for post colorectal cancer surveillance. MDM Policy Pract 3:238146831881051

91.

Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau J-M et al (2013) Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 45:842–864PubMed

92.

Colquhoun P, Chen H-C, Kim JI et al (2004) High compliance rates observed for follow up colonoscopy post polypectomy are achievable outside of clinical trials: efficacy of polypectomy is not reduced by low compliance for follow up. Color Dis 6:158–161

93.

Taylor DP, Cannon-Albright LA, Sweeney C et al (2011) Comparison of compliance for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance by colonoscopy based on risk. Genet Med 13:737–743PubMed

94.

Rapuri S, Spencer J, Eckels D (2008) Importance of postpolypectomy surveillance and postpolypectomy compliance to follow-up screening – review of literature. Int J Color Dis 23:453–459

95.

Cooper GS, Kou TD, Barnholtz Sloan JS et al (2013) Use of colonoscopy for polyp surveillance in Medicare beneficiaries. Cancer 119:1800–1807PubMed

96.

Koh FH, Chan DKH, Ng J et al (2019) Adherence to surveillance guidelines following colonic polypectomy is abysmal. J Gastrointest Oncol 10:166–170PubMedPubMedCentral

97.

Atkin W, Cross AJ, Kralj-Hans I et al (2019) Faecal immunochemical tests versus colonoscopy for post-polypectomy surveillance: an accuracy, acceptability and economic study. Health Technol Assess 23:1–84PubMedPubMedCentral

98.

Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G et al (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of advanced neoplasia in individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA 301:2453–2461PubMed

99.

Sosna J, Sella T, Sy O et al (2008) Critical analysis of the performance of double-contrast barium enema for detecting colorectal polyps > or = 6 mm in the era of CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:374–385PubMed

100.

Kroijer R, Kobaek-Larsen M, Qvist N et al (2019) Colon capsule endoscopy for colonic surveillance. Color Dis 21:532–537

101.

Burling D, Halligan S, Slater A et al (2006) Potentially serious adverse events at CT colonography in symptomatic patients: national survey of the United Kingdom. Radiology 239:464–471PubMed

102.

Pickhardt PJ (2006) Incidence of colonic perforation at CT colonography: review of existing data and implications for screening of asymptomatic adults. Radiology 239:313–316PubMed

103.

Prabhakar N, Kalra N, Bhasin DK et al (2015) Comparison of CT colonography with conventional colonoscopy in patients with ulcerative colitis. Acad Radiol 22:296–302PubMed

104.

Silvestre J, del Mar Sánchez-Lauro M, del Mar Callejón M et al (2015) Pneumoperitoneum after CT colonography in a patient with ulcerative colitis. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 107:456–457PubMed

105.

Zafar HM, Harhay MO, Yang J et al (2014) Adverse events following computed tomographic colonography compared to optical colonoscopy in the elderly. Prev Med Rep 1:3–8PubMedPubMedCentral

106.

Ponugoti PL, Cummings OW, Rex DK (2017) Risk of cancer in small and diminutive colorectal polyps. Dig Liver Dis 49:34–37PubMed

107.

Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH et al (2010) Systematic review: distribution of advanced neoplasia according to polyp size at screening colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31:210–217PubMed

108.

Lieberman D, Moravec M, Holub J et al (2008) Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography. Gastroenterology 135:1100–1105PubMed

109.

Hassan C, Pooler BD, Kim DH et al (2013) Computed tomographic colonography for colorectal cancer screening: risk factors for the detection of advanced neoplasia. Cancer 119:2549–2554PubMed

110.

Kolligs FT, Crispin A, Graser A et al (2013) Risk factors for advanced neoplasia within subcentimetric polyps: implications for diagnostic imaging. Gut 62:863–870PubMed

111.

Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Pooler BD et al (2013) Assessment of volumetric growth rates of small colorectal polyps with CT colonography: a longitudinal study of natural history. Lancet Oncol 14:711–720PubMedPubMedCentral

112.

Pooler BD, Kim DH, Weiss JM et al (2016) Colorectal polyps missed with optical colonoscopy despite previous detection and localization with CT colonography. Radiology 278:422–429PubMed

113.

Bond JH (2001) Clinical relevance of the small colorectal polyp. Endoscopy 33:454–457PubMed

114.

Church JM (2004) Clinical significance of small colorectal polyps. Dis Colon Rectum 47:481–485PubMed

115.

Weston AP, Campbell DR (1995) Diminutive colonic polyps: histopathology, spatial distribution, concomitant significant lesions, and treatment complications. Am J Gastroenterol 90:24–28PubMed

116.

van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al (2006) Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 101:343–350PubMed

117.

Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT et al (1997) Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 112:24–28PubMed

118.

Spada C, Hassan C, Galmiche JP et al (2012) Colon capsule endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 44:527–536PubMed

119.

Martínez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA et al (2009) A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology 136:832–841PubMed

Titel: Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline – Update 2020
verfasst von: Cristiano Spada
Cesare Hassan
Davide Bellini
David Burling
Giovanni Cappello
Cristina Carretero
Evelien Dekker
Rami Eliakim
Margriet de Haan
Michal F. Kaminski
Anastasios Koulaouzidis
Andrea Laghi
Philippe Lefere
Thomas Mang
Sebastian Manuel Milluzzo
Martina Morrin
Deirdre McNamara
Emanuele Neri
Silvia Pecere
Mathieu Pioche
Andrew Plumb
Emanuele Rondonotti
Manon CW Spaander
Stuart Taylor
Ignacio Fernandez-Urien
Jeanin E. van Hooft
Jaap Stoker
Daniele Regge
Publikationsdatum: 26.10.2020
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07413-4

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline – Update 2020

Main recommendations

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Screening-Mammografie offenbart erhöhtes Herz-Kreislauf-Risiko

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Main recommendations

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2021

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with dilated vs. nondilated bile ducts: technical considerations and complications

A CT-based radiomics nomogram for differentiation of lympho-associated benign and malignant lesions of the parotid gland

Quantitative evaluation of passive muscle stiffness by shear wave elastography in healthy individuals of different ages

Analysis of patients receiving ≥ 100 mSv during a computed tomography intervention

Comparison of virtual computed tomography enteroscopy using carbon dioxide with small-bowel enteroclysis and capsule endoscopy in patients with small-bowel tuberculosis

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy: MRI findings in HIV-infected patients are closer to rituximab- than natalizumab-associated PML

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Screening-Mammografie offenbart erhöhtes Herz-Kreislauf-Risiko

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Update Radiologie