OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of colonoscopy (CS) and CT colonography (CTC) in the measurement of colorectal polyps using pathological size as a reference.
METHODS: The analysis included 61 colorectal polyps in 28 patients who underwent preoperative CTC at our institution. All polyps were endoscopically resected. Polyp sizes were measured by CS and CTC. Endoscopic polyp size was extracted from endoscopy records written by one of two endoscopists (A with 11 and B with 6 years of endoscopic experience, respectively), who estimated the size visually/categorically without any measuring devices. After matching the location, the polyp size was measured on CTC using manual three-dimensional (3D) measurement on a workstation. The sizes of resected polyps were also measured after pathological inspection. Differences of the polyp size between CTC and histology, and between CS and histology were compared using paired t tests. Differences in measurement between the two endoscopists were also analyzed.
RESULTS: The mean diameters of polyps measured using CS, CTC, and pathology were 10.5 mm, 9.2 mm, and 8.4 mm, respectively. There was a significant correlation between CS and pathology, as well as between CTC and pathology (both P < 0.0001). The correlation coefficient for CS (r = 0.86) was lower than that for CTC (r = 0.96). The correlations between CS and pathology for endoscopists A and B were 0.90 and 0.89, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of polyp size using CTC were closer to the pathological measurements compared to those by CS, which exhibited greater variability. This suggests that CTC may be more suitable for polyp size measurements in the clinical setting if patients undergo CTC concurrently with colonoscopy.

UNASSIGNED: To investigate patient acceptance and preference for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) over colonoscopy.
UNASSIGNED: Participants were recruited from a nationwide multicenter trial in Japan to assess the accuracy of CTC detection. They were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy after CTC with common bowel preparation on the same day. Some were administered sedative drugs during colonoscopy, depending on the referring clinician and participant\'s preferences. The participants were requested to complete a questionnaire to evaluate the acceptability of bowel preparation, examinations, and preference for future examinations.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 1,257 enrolled participants, 1,180 (mean age: 60.6 years; women: 43.3%) completed the questionnaire. Sedative drugs were not administered in 687 participants (unsedated colonoscopy group) and were administered intravenously during colonoscopy in 493 participants (sedated colonoscopy group). Before propensity score matching, the mean participants\' age, percentages of asymptomatic participants, insufflation of gas during colonoscopy, and number of participants with a history of abdominal/pelvic operation significantly differed between the groups. After propensity score matching, 912 participants from each group were included in the analysis. In the unsedated colonoscopy group, CTC was answered as significantly easier than colonoscopy (p<0.001). Conversely, CTC was significantly more difficult than colonoscopy in the sedated colonoscopy group (p<0.001). In the unsedated colonoscopy group, 48% preferred CTC and 22% preferred colonoscopy for future examinations, whereas in the sedated colonoscopy group, 26% preferred CTC and 38% preferred colonoscopy (p<0.001).
UNASSIGNED: CTC has superior participant acceptability compared with unsedated colonoscopy. However, our study did not observe the advantages of CTC acceptance over sedative colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate bowel preparation burden, rectal pain and abdominal discomfort levels and to determine the association between demographic characteristics and those levels among participants undergoing CT colonography and colonoscopy.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in eligible Thai citizens who consented to participate all four visits of a free colorectal cancer screening protocol. Three levels (mild, moderate and severe) of burden, pain and discomfort were used to ask the perspective of participants at the final visit, one week after undergoing those two procedures.
RESULTS: Data from 1,271 participants completed for analyses - females 815 (64.1%), males 456 (35.9%). The majority of participants experienced mild burden, pain and discomfort. Association between characteristic groups and burden levels differed regarding own income, chronic disease and laxative. Between characteristic groups and pain and discomfort levels differed regarding own income and chronic disease. Participants without their own income rated severe burden lower than those who had (p<0.001), but those without chronic disease rated moderate burden lower than who had (p=0.003). Participants prepared bowel with spilt-dose of PEG rated moderate burden higher than those who prepared with NaP (p<0.001). Participants undergoing CT colonography without their own income and presenting no chronic disease faced severe rectal pain lower than those who had (p<0.001 and p=0.04). Participants without their own income rated moderate and severe abdominal discomfort lower than those who had (p<0.01 and p=0.008). Participants undergoing colonoscopy without their own income and no chronic diseases faced severe rectal pain lower than those who had (p<0.001 and p=0.007). Participants without their own income and no chronic disease rated severe abdominal discomfort lower than those who had (p<0.001 and p=0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating the perspectives of customers alongside quality improvement and innovation to reduce unpleasant experiences remains needed in CT colonography and colonoscopy to promote CRC screening.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of white light colon capsule endoscopy\'s current clinical application, concentrating on its most recent developments. Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE2) is approved by the FDA for use as an adjunctive test in patients with incomplete colonoscopy and within Europe in patients at average risk, those with incomplete colonoscopies or those unwilling to undergo conventional colonoscopies. Since the publication of European Society of GI Endoscopy guidelines on the use of CCE, there has been a significant increase in comparative studies on the diagnostic yield of CCE. This paper discusses CCE2 in further detail. It explains newly developed colon capsule system and the current status on the use of CCE, it also provides a comprehensive summary of systematic reviews on the implementation of CCE in colorectal cancer screening from a methodological perspective. Patients with ulcerative colitis can benefit from CCE2 in terms of assessing mucosal inflammation. As part of this review, performance of CCE2 for assessing disease severity in ulcerative colitis is compared with colonoscopy. Finally, an assessment if CCE can become a cost-effective clinical service overall.

(1) Although new imaging methods for examining the GIT with high diagnostic capabilities were introduced, the improvement and implementation of safe, efficient, and cost-effective approaches continue, and GIT diseases are still challenging to diagnose; (2) Methods: We aim to show the possibilities of computed tomography (CT) colonography for early diagnosis of colon diseases using a multidetector 32-channel CT scanner after appropriate preparation; (3) Results: After a colonoscopy was performed earlier, 140 patients were examined with CT colonography. Complete colonoscopy was performed in 80 patients (57.1%) out of 140 who underwent CT colonography. Incomplete colonoscopy was observed in 52 patients (37.2%); in 5 patients (3.6%), it was contraindicated, and in 3 patients (2.1%), it was not performed because of patients\' refusal. We determined that in cases of complete FCS in 95% of patients, CT colonography established the same clinical diagnosis as FCS. In cases of incomplete, refused, or contraindicated FCS in 32.7% (17 patients), FCS failed to diagnose correctly. The main reasons for incomplete colonoscopy were: intraluminal obturation of tumor nature-17 patients (33%), extraluminal obturation (compression) from a tumor formation-4 patients (8%), stenotic changes of non-tumor nature-11 patients (21%), congenital diseases with changes in the length of the lumen of the intestinal loops-7 patients (13%), and subjective factors (pain, poor preparation, contraindications) in 13 patients (25%); (4) Conclusions: Our results confirmed that CT colonography is a method of choice in cases of negative FCS results accompanied by clinical data for the neoplastic process and in cases of incomplete and contraindicated FCS. Also, the insufflation system we developed optimizes the method by improving the quality of the obtained images and ensuring good patient tolerance.

OBJECTIVE: To compare MiraLAX, a hypo-osmotic lavage, and magnesium citrate (MgC), a hyper-osmotic agent for bowel preparation at CTC.
METHODS: 398 total screening CTC studies were included in this retrospective, single institution study. 297 underwent preparation with a double-dose MgC regimen (mean age, 61 ± 5.5 years; 142 male/155 female) and 101 with 8.3 oz (equivalent to 238 g PEG) of MiraLAX (mean age, 60 ± 9.6 years; 45 male/56 female). Oral contrast for tagging purposes was utilized in both regimens. Studies were retrospectively analyzed for residual fluid volume and attenuation by automated analysis, as well for subjective oral contrast coating of the normal colonic wall and polyps. 50 patients underwent successive CTC studies utilizing each agent (mean, 6.1 ± 1.7 years apart), allowing for intra-patient comparison. Chi-squared, Fisher\'s exact, McNemar, and t-tests were used for data comparison.
RESULTS: Residual fluid volume (as percentage of total colonic volume) and fluid density was 7.2 ± 4.2% and 713 ± 183 HU for the MgC cohort and 8.7 ± 3.8% and 1044 HU ± 274 for the MiraLAX cohort, respectively (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Similar results were observed for the intra-patient cohort. Colonic wall coating negatively influencing interpretation was noted in 1.7% of MgC vs. 6.9% of MiraLAX examinations (p = 0.008). Polyps were detected in 12% of all MgC vs. 16% of all MiraLAX CTCs (p = 0.29).
CONCLUSIONS: CTC bowel preparation with the hypo-osmotic MiraLAX agent appears to provide acceptable diagnostic quality that is comparable to the hyper-osmotic MgC agent, especially when factoring in patient safety and tolerance.

BACKGROUND. Approximately one-third of the eligible U.S. population have not undergone guideline-compliant colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Guidelines recognize various screening strategies to increase adherence. CMS provides coverage for all recommended screening tests except CT colonography (CTC). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CTC and other CRC screening tests in terms of associations of utilization with income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. METHODS. This retrospective study used CMS Research Identifiable Files from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020. These files contain claims information for 5% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Data were extracted for individuals 45-85 years old, and individuals with high CRC risk were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine the likelihood of undergoing CRC screening tests (as well as of undergoing diagnostic CTC, a CMS-covered test with similar physical access as screening CTC) as a function of income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity while controlling for sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, U.S. census region, screening year, and related conditions and procedures. RESULTS. For 12,273,363 beneficiary years (mean age, 70.5 ± 8.2 [SD] years; 2,436,849 unique beneficiaries: 6,774,837 female beneficiaries, 5,498,526 male beneficiaries), there were 785,103 CRC screenings events, including 645 for screening CTC. Compared with individuals living in communities with per capita income of less than US$25,000, individuals in communities with income of US$100,000 or more had OR for undergoing screening CTC of 5.73, optical colonoscopy (OC) of 1.36, sigmoidoscopy of 1.03, guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test of 1.50, stool DNA of 1.43, and diagnostic CTC of 2.00. The OR for undergoing screening CTC was 1.00 for Hispanic individuals and 1.08 for non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Compared with the OR for undergoing screening CTC for residents of metropolitan areas, the OR was 0.51 for residents of micropolitan areas and 0.65 for residents of small or rural areas. CONCLUSION. The association with income was substantially larger for screening CTC than for other CRC screening tests or for diagnostic CTC. CLINICAL IMPACT. Medicare\'s noncoverage for screening CTC may contribute to lower adherence with CRC screening guidelines for lower-income beneficiaries. Medicare coverage of CTC could reduce income-based disparities for individuals avoiding OC owing to invasiveness, need for anesthesia, or complication risk.

Radiologic imaging, especially MRI, has long been the mainstay for rectal cancer staging and patient selection for neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgical resection. In contrast, colonoscopy and CT have been the standard for colon cancer diagnosis and metastasis staging with T and N staging often performed at the time of surgical resection. With recent clinical trials exploring the expansion of the use of neoadjuvant therapy beyond the anorectum to the remainder of the colon, the current and future state of colon cancer treatment is evolving with a renewed interest in evaluating the role radiology may play in the primary T staging of colon cancer. The performance of CT, CT colonography, MRI, and FDG PET-CT for colon cancer staging will be reviewed. N staging will also be briefly discussed. It is expected that accurate radiologic T staging will significantly impact future clinical decisions regarding the neoadjuvant versus surgical management of colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of a luminal colonic disease is of essential clinical importance to start timely optimised therapy and detect complications early.
OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to provide an overview of the use of radiological methods in diagnosing neoplastic and inflammatory luminal diseases of the colon. Characteristic morphological features are discussed and compared.
METHODS: Based on an extensive literature review, the current state of knowledge regarding the imaging diagnosis of luminal pathologies of the colon and their importance in patient management is presented.
RESULTS: Technological advances in imaging have made the diagnosis of neoplastic and inflammatory colonic diseases using abdominal computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging the established standard. Imaging is performed as part of the initial diagnosis in clinically symptomatic patients, to exclude complications, as a follow-up assessment under therapy and as an optional screening method in asymptomatic individuals.
CONCLUSIONS: Accurate knowledge of the radiological manifestations of the numerous luminal disease patterns, the typical distribution pattern and characteristic bowel wall changes are essential to improve diagnostic decision-making.
UNASSIGNED: HINTERGRUND: Eine frühzeitige Diagnose von luminalen Dickdarmerkrankungen ist von wesentlicher klinischer Bedeutung, um eine rechtzeitige optimierte Therapie beginnen und Komplikationen frühzeitig erkennen zu können.
UNASSIGNED: Diese Arbeit soll einen Überblick über den Einsatz radiologischer Methoden bei der Diagnose neoplastischer und entzündlicher luminaler Erkrankungen des Kolons vermitteln. Dabei werden charakteristische morphologische Merkmale diskutiert und gegenübergestellt.
METHODS: Anhand einer ausführlichen Literaturrecherche wird der aktuelle Wissensstand bezüglich der bildgebenden Diagnostik luminaler Pathologien des Dickdarms und ihrer Bedeutung im Patientenmanagement dargestellt.
UNASSIGNED: Durch die technologischen Fortschritte in der Bildgebung ist die Diagnose von neoplastischen und entzündlichen Kolonerkrankungen mittels abdominaler Computertomographie (CT) und Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) zum etablierten Standard geworden. Die Bildgebung erfolgt im Rahmen der Erstdiagnose bei klinisch symptomatischen Patienten, zum Ausschluss von Komplikationen, für eine Verlaufsbeurteilung unter Therapie sowie als optionale Screeningmethode bei asymptomatischen Personen.
CONCLUSIONS: Die genaue Kenntnis der radiologischen Erscheinungsformen der zahlreichen luminalen Krankheitsbilder, dem typischen Verteilungsmuster und den charakteristischen Darmwandveränderungen sind wesentlich, um die diagnostische Entscheidungsfähigkeit zu verbessern.

The purpose of this study was to understand the public perception of CT colonography (CTC) in comparison with optical colonoscopy as a colorectal cancer screening technique.
In this observational study, all English-language tweets from January 1, 2015, until September 1, 2021, containing terms related to CTC and terms related to optical colonoscopy were collected. The tweets were given sentiment scores using Twitter-roBERTa-base, a natural language processing model. These scores were then used to classify tweets into positive, neutral, and negative categories. The numbers of negative, positive, and neutral tweets were tabulated.
A total of 4,709 tweets from 2,194 users relating to CTC were collected. Of these tweets, 9.81% were negative, 68.52% were neutral, and 21.63% were positive. In comparison, a total of 445,969 tweets from 261,209 users were collected relating to optical colonoscopy. Of these tweets, 31.8% were negative, 51.3% were neutral, and 16.9% were positive.
The public awareness of CTC remains limited in comparison with optical colonoscopy, with Twitter volume relating to CTC being about 1% the volume for optical colonoscopy. There was a higher proportion of negative tweets regarding colonoscopy. The lower proportion of negative tweets regarding CTC may be helpful in encouraging its use as an alternative to optical colonoscopy, with the aim of increasing uptake of colorectal cancer screening.