title: Virtual colonoscopy vs conventional colonoscopy in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer--a prospective trial of 150 patients.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Virtual colonoscopy (VC)/CT colonography has advantages over the well-documented limitations of colonoscopy/barium enema. This prospective blinded investigative comparison trial aimed to evaluate the ability of VC to assess the large bowel, compared to conventional colonoscopy (CC), in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC).
  
  
  METHODS
  We studied 150 patients (73 males, mean age 60.9 years) at high risk of CRC. Following bowel preparation, VC was undertaken using colonic insufflation and 2D-spiral CT acquisition. Two radiologists reported the images and a consensual agreement reached. Direct comparison was made with CC (performed later the same day). Interobserver agreement was calculated using the Kappa method. Postal questionnaires sought patient preference.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Virtual colonoscopy visualized the caecum in all cases. Five (3.33%) VCs were classified as inadequate owing to poor distension/faecal residue. CC completion rate was 86%. Ultimately, 44 patients had normal findings, 44 had diverticular disease, 11 had inflammatory bowel disease, 18 had cancers, and 33 patients had 42 polyps. VC identified 19 cancers--a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 99.2% respectively. For detecting polyps > 10 mm, VC had a sensitivity and specificity (per patient) of 91% and 99.2% respectively. VC identified four polyps proximal to stenosing carcinomas and extracolonic malignancies in nine patients (6%). No procedural complications occurred with either investigation. A Kappa score achieved for interobserver agreement was 0.777.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Virtual colonoscopy is an effective and safe method for evaluating the bowel and was the investigation of choice amongst patients surveyed. VC provided information additional to CC on both proximal and extracolonic pathology. VC may become the diagnostic procedure of choice for symptomatic patients at high risk of CRC, with CC being reserved for therapeutic intervention, or where a tissue diagnosis is required.
authors.affiliation: The Academic Surgical Unit, University of Hull, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, UK.
authors.forename: T J
authors.initials: TJ
authors.lastname: White
authors.forename: G R
authors.initials: GR
authors.lastname: Avery
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Kennan
authors.forename: A M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Syed
authors.forename: J E
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Hartley
authors.forename: J R T
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Monson
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D003111:Colonic Polyps / Q000175:diagnosis*; D023881:Colonography, Computed Tomographic; D003113:Colonoscopy; D015179:Colorectal Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012307:Risk Factors