Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Post-surgical follow-up of colorectal cancer: role of contrast-enhanced CT colonography

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the role of CT colonography (CTC) in the follow-up of patients having received partial colectomy for colorectal cancer.

Methods and materials

CTC was performed in 72 subjects with history of partial colectomy for colorectal cancer. Colectomy had been performed in the right colon (n = 18), descending colon (n = 15), sigmoid colon (n = 21), and rectum (n = 18). Patients underwent CTC following incomplete conventional colonoscopy due to intolerance to endoscope insertion or luminal stenosis. In 70 cases pneumocolon was obtained through a rectal tube, and in 2 cases through a cutaneous anastomosis. CTC datasets were analyzed in combined 2D and 3D mode. All patients in whom CTC was suggestive for or raised the suspicion of disease recurrence underwent colonoscopy in sedation for confirmation of CTC findings.

Results

CTC detected 7 cases of anastomotic stenosis. In 6/7 patients the stenosis was located in the sigmoid colon and in 1/7 patients at the level of the ileo-colic junction in the transverse colon. Out of these cases, four were fibrotic and three were neoplastic stenoses. In none of these cases was the CT appearance of the stenoses specific for disease recurrence, and conventional colonoscopy together with biopsy was necessary in order to characterize such findings. However, sensitivity of CTC in detecting anastomotic stenosis was 100% (7/7). One colonic mass (5 cm largest diameter) was detected in one case at the level of the proximal transverse colon in a patient with left colectomy performed 2 years before. The study of the residual colon showed 3 polyps in three patients (8, 6, and 5 mm, respectively). All CT findings were confirmed and characterized by conventional colonoscopy. In all cases the residual colon was entirely visualized by CTC with a completion rate of 100%.

Conclusions

CTC is a feasible and minimally invasive method for full exploration of the colon after surgical resection allowing detection of cancer recurrence, metachronous disease, and distant metastases in one single study, and represents a valid alternative to conventional colonoscopy in this patient population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shoemaker D, Black R, Giles L, et al. (1998) Yearly colonoscopy, liver CT, and chest radiology do not influence 5-year survival of colorectal cancer patients. Gastroenterology 114:7–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Goldberg R, Fleming T, Tangen C, et al. (1998) Surgery for recurrent colon cancer: strategies for identifying resectable recurrence and success rates after resection. Ann Intern Med 129:27–35

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Turk P, Wanebo HJ (1993) Results of surgical treatment of nonhepatic recurrence of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 71:4267–4277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gordon PH (1999) Malignant neoplasms of the colon. In: Gordon PH, Nivatvongs S (eds) Principles and practice of surgery for the colon, rectum and anus, 2nd edn. St. Louis: Quality Medical, pp 679–687

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schiessel R, Wunderlich M, Herbst F (1986) Local recurrence of colorectal cancer: effect of early detection and aggressive surgery. Br J Surg 73:342–344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sugihara K, Hojo K, Morija Y, et al. (1993) Pattern of recurrence after hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. Br J Surg 80:1032–1035

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McFall MR, Woods WG, Miles WF (2003) Colonoscopic surveillance after curative colorectal resection: results of an empirical surveillance programme. Colorectal Dis 5(3):233–240

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rulyak SJ, Lieberman DA, Wagner EH, et al. (2007) Outcome of follow-up colon examination among a population-based cohort of colorectal cancer patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5(4):470–476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mathew J, Saklani AK, Borghol M (2006) Surveillance colonoscopy in patients with colorectal cancer: how often should we be doing it? Surgeon 4(1):3–5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rex DK, Kahi CJ, Levin B, et al. (2006) Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 56(3):160–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rex DK, Kahi CJ, Levin B, US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, et al. (2006) Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 130(6):1865–1871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al. (2006) Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology 130(6):1872–1885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Virgo K, Wade T, Longo W, et al. (1995) Surveillance after curative colon cancer resection: practice patterns of surgical subspecialists. Ann Surg Oncol 2:467–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schrag D (1999) Defining optimal treatment for stage II colon cancer: does decision and analysis help? Gastroenterology 117:1005–1008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. White TJ, Avery GR, Kennan N, et al. (2009) Virtual colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer—a prospective trial of 150 patients. Colorectal Dis 11(2):138–145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fenlon H, Nunes D, Schroy PI, et al. (1999) A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 341:1496–1503

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schima W, Mang T (2004) CT colonography in cancer detection: methods and results. Cancer Imaging 4(Spec No A):S33–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Bria E, et al. (2003) Contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography in the follow-up of colorectal cancer patients: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 13(4):883–889

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yau-Tong Y, Chung-Rong CC, Jeng-Yi W, et al. (2006) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography in detection of local recurrent colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 12(1):123–126

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al. (2005) CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 236(1):3–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Krueger WR, et al. (2002) Contrast-enhanced CT colonography in recurrent colorectal carcinoma: feasibility of simultaneous evaluation for metastatic disease, local recurrence, and metachronous neoplasia in colorectal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178(2):283–290

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leonardou P, Striggaris K, Pappas P, et al. (2006) Screening of patients after colectomy: virtual colonography. Abdom Imaging 31(5):521–528

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Choi YJ, Park SH, Lee SS, et al. (2007) CT colonography for follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(2):283–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Manfredi S, Bouvier AM, Lepage C, et al. (2006) Incidence and patterns of recurrence after resection for cure of colonic cancer in a well defined population. Br J Surg 93(9):1115–1122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56100, Pisa, Italy

    Emanuele Neri, Paola Vagli, Francesca Turini, Francesca Cerri, Lorenzo Faggioni, Simone Angeli, Lorenzo Cini & Carlo Bartolozzi

Authors
  1. Emanuele Neri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paola Vagli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesca Turini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francesca Cerri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lorenzo Faggioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Simone Angeli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lorenzo Cini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Carlo Bartolozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emanuele Neri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Neri, E., Vagli, P., Turini, F. et al. Post-surgical follow-up of colorectal cancer: role of contrast-enhanced CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 35, 669–675 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-009-9596-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-009-9596-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation