Zusammenfassung
Die CT-Kolonographie (CTK), auch als virtuelle Koloskopie bezeichnet, wird zunehmend in der radiologischen Praxis eingesetzt. Während für die reine Vorsorgeuntersuchung z. Z. noch keine rechtfertigende Indikation besteht, können symptomatische Patienten nach fehlgeschlagener Koloskopie oder zur Beurteilung des Darms proximal einer Stenose mittels CTK untersucht werden. Ergebnisse wichtiger Studien, die die CT-Kolonographie mit der herkömmlichen Koloskopie vergleichen, beeinflussen die zukünftige Position der Untersuchungsmethode beim Darmkrebsscreening. Vergleichsstudien mit der Koloskopie zeigen das große Potenzial der CT-gestützten Darmuntersuchung.
Abstract
CT colonography (CTC) is also referred to as virtual colonoscopy and is being used with increasing frequency in radiological practice. While there are still no generally accepted, clear-cut indications for its use in mass colorectal cancer screening, there is evidence that this investigation is useful in patients in whom colonoscopy has not been successful or who have known stenotic lesions in the colon. Recent results of significant comparative studies of CTC and conventional colonoscopy will have some influence on the future place of CTC in screening for cancer of the bowel; they show the great potential of CT-aided bowel examination.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Literatur
Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C et al. (2006) Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 239: 149–159
Macari M, Berman P, Dicker M et al. (1999) Usefulness of CT colonography in patients with incomplete colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173: 561–564
Chung DJ, Huh KC, Choi WJ et al. (2005) CT colonography using 16-MDCT in the evaluation of colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184: 98–103
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(2): 464–471
Bitterling H, Rock C, Reiser M (2003) [Computed tomography in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease – methodology of MSCT and clinical results]. Radiologe 43: 17–25
Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR et al. (1993) Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med 328: 1365–1371
Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R et al. (2001) Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut 48: 812–815
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: 1977–1981
Akerkar GA, Yee J, Hung R et al. (2001) Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 54: 310–315
Vining D, Gelfand DW, Bechtold RE et al. (2004) Technical fasibility of colon imaging with helical CT and virtual reality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162 [suppl]: 104
Vining DJ (1996) Virtual endoscopy: is it reality? Radiology 200: 30–31
Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Clarke PD et al. (1998) Colorectal neoplasm detection using virtual colonoscopy: a feasibility study. Gut 43: 806–811
Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC III et al. (1999) A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 341: 1496–1503
Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR et al. (2005) CT Colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 236: 3–9
Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK et al. (2001) Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 219: 685–692
Macari M, Bini EJ, Xue X et al. (2002) Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology 224: 383–392
Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al. (2003) Detection of colorectal lesions: lower-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 229: 775–781
Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al. (2004) Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127: 1300–1311
Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al. (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349: 2191–2200
Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al. (2004) Nonadenomatous polyps at CT colonography: prevalence, size distribution, and detection rates. Radiology 232: 784–790
Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA et al. (2003) Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 125: 311–319
Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC et al. (2004) Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 291: 1713–1719
Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D et al. (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365: 305–311
Doshi T, Rusinak D, Halvorsen RA et al. (2007) CT colonography: false-negative interpretations. Radiology 244: 165–173
Johnson CD et al. (2007) ACRIN Annual Meeting, Arlington, VA, USA, 28. 9. 2007; http://www.acrin.org/files/protocol_does/A6664partial_summary.pdf
Interessenkonflikt
Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Graser, A., Mang, T., Becker, C. et al. Indikationen und Ergebnisse der CT-Kolonographie: von der Vorsorge bis zum symptomatischen Patienten. Radiologe 48, 118–125 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-007-1611-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-007-1611-8