To Fill or Not to Fill? – Value of the Administration of Positive Rectal Contrast for CT Evaluation of Diverticular Disease of the Colon

Abstract

Purpose To assess the value of the administration of positive rectal contrast at CT in patients referred for suspected diverticular disease (DD) of the colon.

Materials and Methods 460 patients (253 male, 207 female; median age 62 years; interquartile range 24) with clinical suspicion of DD of the colon were included in this retrospective IRB-approved study. CT was performed with i. v. contrast only (n = 328, group M1), i. v. + positive rectal contrast (n = 82, group M2), neither i. v. nor rectal contrast (n = 32, group S1), or positive rectal contrast only (n = 19, group S2). Two readers in consensus evaluated all CT datasets concerning diagnosis of DD (yes/no) and categorized findings (classification of diverticular disease (CDD)). Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values for the diagnosis of DD were calculated for all groups, using either clinical follow-up (n = 335) or intraoperative findings (n = 125) as the reference standard. In patients undergoing surgery, radiological staging of DD was correlated with the histopathology (weighted Cohen-k).

Results 224 patients (48.7 %) were diagnosed with DD. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were as follows. Group M1 / M2: 92 %/92 %, 97 %/94 %, 96 %/96 %, 94 %/89 %, respectively; group S1 / S2: 94 %/86 %, 93 %/80 %, 94 %/92 %, 93 %/67 %, respectively. Radiological staging and histopathology correlated substantially in all groups (k = 0.748–0.861).

Conclusion Abdominal CT had a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of DD. Disease staging correlated well with the findings at surgery. Additional positive rectal contrast administration did not have a significant advantage and may therefore be omitted in patients with suspected DD.

Key Points:

• CT has a high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of DD.

• CT staging using the CDD algorithm correlates very well with surgery.

• Positive rectal contrast administration does not improve diagnosis and radiological staging.

Citation Format

• Meyer S, Schmidbauer M, Wacker FK et al. To Fill or Not to Fill? – Value of the Administration of Positive Rectal Contrast for CT Evaluation of Diverticular Disease of the Colon. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 804 – 812

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Evaluation der rektalen Gabe positiven KM im Rahmen der CT bei Patienten mit klinischem Verdacht auf Divertikelkrankheit des Dickdarms (DD).

Material und Methoden 460 Patienten (253 Männer, 207 Frauen; medianes Alter 62 Jahre; Interquartilsabstand 24) mit klinischem Verdacht auf DD wurden in diese retrospektive, durch die Ethikkommission genehmigte Studie eingeschlossen. Die CT wurde nur mit i. v. KM (n = 328, Gruppe M1), i. v. und positivem rektalem KM (n = 82, Gruppe M2), weder i. v. noch positivem rektalem KM (n = 32, Gruppe S1) oder nur positivem rektalem KM (n = 18, Gruppe S2) durchgeführt. Die CT-Untersuchungen wurden von 2 Radiologen gemeinsam im Hinblick auf die Diagnose DD (ja/nein) evaluiert und, falls zutreffend, basierend auf der Klassifikation der Divertikelkrankheit (CDD) kategorisiert. Als Referenzstandard dienten der klinische Verlauf (n = 335) sowie der operative/histologische Befund (n = 125). Sensitivität, Spezifität, positiver (PPV) und negativer prädiktiver Wert (NPV) wurden für alle Gruppe berechnet. Im Fall einer Operation wurde das CT-Stadium mit dem histopathologischen Ergebnis korreliert (gewichtete Cohen-k).

Ergebnisse Bei 224 Patienten (48,7 %) wurde eine DD diagnostiziert. Sensitivität, Spezifität, PPV und NPV für die CT waren wie folgt: Gruppe M1 / M2: 92 %/92 %, 97 %/94 %, 96 %/96 %, 94 %/89 %; Gruppe S1 / S2: 94 %/86 %, 93 %/80 %, 94 %/92 %, 93 %/67 %. Das CT-Stadium korrelierte in allen Gruppen sehr gut mit dem histopathologischen Befund (k = 0,748–0,861).

Schlussfolgerung Die CT hat eine hohe Sensitivität und Spezifität für die Diagnose einer Divertikelkrankheit des Dickdarms. Das radiologische Krankheitsstadium korrelierte sehr gut mit dem intraoperativen Befund. Die ergänzende rektale Applikation von positivem KM hat jedoch in der vorliegenden Studie keinen signifikanten Vorteil gezeigt, sodass im Rahmen der klinischen Routine auf diese verzichtet werden kann.

Kernaussagen:

• Die CT hat eine hohe Sensitivität/Spezifität für die Diagnose DD.

• Das CT-Stadium (CDD Algorithmus) korreliert sehr gut mit dem operativen Befund.

• Die Gabe von positivem rektalen KM verbessert weder Diagnose noch Stadieneinteilung.

Key words

diverticular disease - diverticulitis - colon - contrast - CT

Publication History

Received: 23 September 2020

Accepted: 02 December 2020

Article published online:
03 February 2021

• References

• 1 Commane DM, Arasaradnam RP, Mills S. et al. Diet, ageing and genetic factors in the pathogenesis of diverticular disease. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 2479-2488
• 2 Boynton W, Floch M. New strategies for the management of diverticular disease: insights for the clinician. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2013; 6: 205-213
• 3 Peery AF, Barrett PR, Park D. et al. A high-fiber diet does not protect against asymptomatic diverticulosis. Gastroenterology 2012; 142: 266-272, e261
• 4 Ambrosetti P. Acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis: clinical expressions, therapeutic insights, and role of computed tomography. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2016; 9: 249-257
• 5 Hinchey EJ, Schaal PG, Richards GK. Treatment of perforated diverticular disease of the colon. Adv Surg 1978; 12: 85-109
• 6 Hansen O, Graupe F, Stock W. Prognostic factors in perforating diverticulitis of the large intestine. Chirurg 1998; 69: 443-449
• 7 Schreyer AG, Layer G. S2k Guid3lines for Diverticular Disease and Diverticulitis: Diagnosis, Classification, and Therapy for the Radiologist. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2015; 187: 676-684
• 8 Leifeld L, Germer CT, Bohm S. et al. S2k guidelines diverticular disease/diverticulitis. Z Gastroenterol 2014; 52: 663-710
• 9 Galgano SJ, McNamara MM. Expert Panel on Gastrointestinal Imaging. et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Left Lower Quadrant Pain-Suspected Diverticulitis. J Am Coll Radiol 2019; 16: S141-S149
• 10 Murphy T, Hunt RH, Fried M. et al Diverticular disease. Available at (accessed 2020 Jun 28): https://www.worldgastroenterologyorg/UserFiles/file/guidelines/diverticular-disease-english-2007pdf
• 11 Snyder MJ. Imaging of colonic diverticular disease. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2004; 17: 155-162
• 12 Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA. et al. Helical CT with only colonic contrast material for diagnosing diverticulitis: prospective evaluation of 150 patients. Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170: 1445-1449
• 13 Werner A, Diehl SJ, Farag-Soliman M. et al. Multi-slice spiral CT in routine diagnosis of suspected acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis: a prospective study of 120 patients. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 2596-2603
• 14 Broder JS, Hamedani AG, Liu SW. et al. Emergency department contrast practices for abdominal/pelvic computed tomography – a national survey and comparison with the american college of radiology appropriateness criteria((R)). J Emerg Med 2013; 44: 423-433
• 15 Prokop M, van der Molen AJ. Patientenvorbereitung und Konstratmittelapplikation. In: Prokop M, Galanski M, Schaefer-Prokop C. et al. (Hrsg) Ganzkörper-Computertomographie. Stuttgart: Georg-Thieme Verlag; 2007: 96-111
• 16 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
• 17 Garra G, Singer AJ, Bamber D. et al. Pretreatment of patients requiring oral contrast abdominal computed tomography with antiemetics: a randomized controlled trial of efficacy. Ann Emerg Med 2009; 53: 528-533
• 18 Kammerer S, Hoink AJ, Wessling J. et al. Abdominal and pelvic CT: is positive enteric contrast still necessary? Results of a retrospective observational study. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 669-678
• 19 Maniatis V, Chryssikopoulos H, Roussakis A. et al. Perforation of the alimentary tract: evaluation with computed tomography. Abdom Imaging 2000; 25: 373-379
• 20 Liljegren G, Chabok A, Wickbom M. et al. Acute colonic diverticulitis: a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy. Colorectal Dis 2007; 9: 480-488
• 21 Karam AR, Birjawi GA, Sidani CA. et al. Alternative diagnoses of acute appendicitis on helical CT with intravenous and rectal contrast. Clin Imaging 2007; 31: 77-86
• 22 Gourtsoyianni S, Zamboni GA, Romero JY. et al. Routine use of modified CT Enterography in patients with acute abdominal pain. Eur J Radiol 2009; 69: 388-392
• 23 Kessner R, Barnes S, Halpern P. et al. CT for Acute Nontraumatic Abdominal Pain – Is Oral Contrast Really Required?. Acad Radiol 2017; 24: 840-845
• 24 Cho KC, Morehouse HT, Alterman DD. et al. Sigmoid diverticulitis: diagnostic role of CT – comparison with barium enema studies. Radiology 1990; 176: 111-115
• 25 Ambrosetti P, Grossholz M, Becker C. et al. Computed tomography in acute left colonic diverticulitis. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 532-534
• 26 La Torre M, Mingoli A, Brachini G. et al. Differences between computed tomography and surgical findings in acute complicated diverticulitis. Asian J Surg 2020; 43: 476-481
• 27 Lauscher JC, Lock JF, Aschenbrenner K. et al. Validation of the German classification of Diverticular Disease (VADIS) – a prospective bicentric observational study. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020; DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03721-9.
• 28 Ritz JP, Lehmann KS, Loddenkemper C. et al. Preoperative CT staging in sigmoid diverticulitis – does it correlate with intraoperative and histological findings?. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2010; 395: 1009-1015
• 29 Tack D, Bohy P, Perlot I. et al. Suspected acute colon diverticulitis: imaging with low-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2005; 237: 189-196