Colorectal Cancer Screening

Variant: 1 Colorectal cancer screening. Average-risk individual. Age 45 to 75 years. Initial screening, then follow-up every 5 years after initial negative screen.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT colonography without IV contrast screening	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy barium enema double-contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy barium enema single-contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Colorectal cancer screening. Individuals 45 to 75 years of age with elevated risk (not average risk nor high risk). Initial screening, then follow-up every 5 years after initial negative screen.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT colonography without IV contrast screening	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy barium enema double-contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy barium enema single-contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. High-risk individual.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Fluoroscopy barium enema double-contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy barium enema single-contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT colonography without IV contrast screening	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. Average, elevated, or high risk after incomplete colonoscopy or unable to tolerate colonoscopy.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT colonography without IV contrast screening	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy barium enema double-contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy barium enema single-contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Desencia E. Thomas, MD^a; Natally Horvat, ^b; Kathryn J. Fowler, MD^c; James H. Birkholz, MD^d; Brooks D. Cash, MD^e; Bari Dane, MD^f; Reema H. Dbouk, MD^g; Nader Hanna, MD^h; Janet Hurley, MDⁱ; Elena K. Korngold, MD^j; Jason A. Pietryga, MD^k; Paula Yeghiayan, MD^l; Jason A. Zell, DO, MPH^m; Jennifer Zreloff, MDⁿ; David H. Kim, MD^o.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Colorectal cancer screening. Average-risk individual. Age 45 to 75 years. Initial screening, then follow-up every 5 years after initial negative screen.

Variant 1: Colorectal cancer screening. Average-risk individual. Age 45 to 75 years. Initial screening, then follow-up every 5 years after initial negative screen.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Colorectal cancer screening. Average-risk individual. Age 45 to 75 years. Initial screening, then follow-up every 5 years after initial negative screen.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Colorectal cancer screening. Average-risk individual. Age 45 to 75 years. Initial screening, then follow-up every 5 years after initial negative screen.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Colorectal cancer screening. Average-risk individual. Age 45 to 75 years. Initial screening, then follow-up every 5 years after initial negative screen.
D. CT colonography without IV contrast screening

Variant 1: Colorectal cancer screening. Average-risk individual. Age 45 to 75 years. Initial screening, then follow-up every 5 years after initial negative screen.
E. Fluoroscopy barium enema double-contrast

Variant 1: Colorectal cancer screening. Average-risk individual. Age 45 to 75 years. Initial screening, then follow-up every 5 years after initial negative screen.
F. Fluoroscopy barium enema single-contrast

Variant 2: Colorectal cancer screening. Individuals 45 to 75 years of age with elevated risk (not average risk nor high risk). Initial screening, then follow-up every 5 years after initial negative screen.

Variant 3: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. High-risk individual.

Variant 3: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. High-risk individual.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. High-risk individual.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. High-risk individual.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. High-risk individual.
D. CT colonography without IV contrast screening

Variant 3: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. High-risk individual.
E. Fluoroscopy barium enema double-contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. High-risk individual.
F. Fluoroscopy barium enema single-contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. Average, elevated, or high risk after incomplete colonoscopy or unable to tolerate colonoscopy.

Variant 4: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. Average, elevated, or high risk after incomplete colonoscopy or unable to tolerate colonoscopy.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. Average, elevated, or high risk after incomplete colonoscopy or unable to tolerate colonoscopy.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. Average, elevated, or high risk after incomplete colonoscopy or unable to tolerate colonoscopy.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. Average, elevated, or high risk after incomplete colonoscopy or unable to tolerate colonoscopy.
D. CT colonography without IV contrast screening

Variant 4: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. Average, elevated, or high risk after incomplete colonoscopy or unable to tolerate colonoscopy.
E. Fluoroscopy barium enema double-contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Colorectal cancer screening. Average, elevated, or high risk after incomplete colonoscopy or unable to tolerate colonoscopy.
F. Fluoroscopy barium enema single-contrast

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin 2024;74:12-49.
2.	National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP). Health and Economic Benefits of Colorectal Cancer Interventions. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/priorities/colorectal-cancer.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/programs-impact/pop/colorectal-cancer.htm.
3.	Provenzale D, Ness RM, Llor X, et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Colorectal Cancer Screening, Version 2.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020;18:1312-20.
4.	Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 325(19):1965-1977, 2021 05 18.
5.	Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Jama. 2016;315(23):2564-2575.
6.	Boellaard TN, Venema HW, Streekstra GJ, Stoker J. Effective radiation dose in CT colonography: is there a downward trend?. Acad Radiol. 19(9):1127-33, 2012 Sep.
7.	American College of Radiology. ACR-SABI-SAR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Computed Tomography (CT) Colonography in Adults. Available at https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=33+&releaseId=2
8.	Ozel B, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Schumacher C, Bhargava N, Winter TC. Accuracy of routine nontargeted CT without colonography technique for the detection of large colorectal polyps and cancer. Diseases of the colon and rectum 2010;53:911-8.
9.	Mangat S, Kozoriz MG, Bicknell S, Spielmann A. The Accuracy of Colorectal Cancer Detection by Computed Tomography in the Unprepared Large Bowel in a Community-Based Hospital. Can Assoc Radiol J 2018;69:92-96.
10.	Ye X, Chai H, Huang C, Liu M, Deng T. Can Next-generation Sequencing Replace Fecal Immunochemical Tests or CT in the Screening of Colorectal Cancer and Advanced Adenoma?. Jcpsp, Journal of the College of Physicians & Surgeons - Pakistan. 30(9):940-945, 2020 09.
11.	Johnson CD, Flicek KT, Mead-Harvey C, Quillen JK. Strategies for improving colorectal cancer detection with routine computed tomography. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2023;48:1891-99.
12.	Koo BC, Ng CS, J UK-I, Prevost AT, Freeman AH. Minimal preparation CT for the diagnosis of suspected colorectal cancer in the frail and elderly patient. Clin Radiol 2006;61:127-39.
13.	Yu Q, Liu J. The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging for detection of colorectal tumors: A meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Ther 2016;12:C241-C43.
14.	Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 359(12):1207-17, 2008 Sep 18.
15.	Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med. 349(23):2191-200, 2003 Dec 04.
16.	Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D, et al. Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut. 58(2):241-8, 2009 Feb.
17.	Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA, et al. CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. [Review] [83 refs]. Radiology. 237(3):893-904, 2005 Dec.
18.	Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL. Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography. Ann Intern Med. 142(8):635-50, 2005 Apr 19.
19.	Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA. 291(14):1713-9, 2004 Apr 14.
20.	Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet. 2005; 365(9456):305-311.
21.	Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K, et al. Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 381(9873):1194-202, 2013 Apr 06.
22.	Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Kim DH, Reichelderfer M, Gopal DV, Pfau PR. Screening for colorectal neoplasia with CT colonography: initial experience from the 1st year of coverage by third-party payers. Radiology. 241(2):417-25, 2006 Nov.
23.	Kim DH, Pooler BD, Weiss JM, Pickhardt PJ. Five year colorectal cancer outcomes in a large negative CT colonography screening cohort. Eur Radiol. 22(7):1488-94, 2012 Jul.
24.	Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Hanson ME, Hinshaw JL. CT colonography: performance and program outcome measures in an older screening population. Radiology. 254(2):493-500, 2010 Feb.
25.	Macari M, Nevsky G, Bonavita J, Kim DC, Megibow AJ, Babb JS. CT colonography in senior versus nonsenior patients: extracolonic findings, recommendations for additional imaging, and polyp prevalence. Radiology. 259(3):767-74, 2011 Jun.
26.	Johnson CD, Herman BA, Chen MH, et al. The National CT Colonography Trial: assessment of accuracy in participants 65 years of age and older. Radiology. 263(2):401-8, 2012 May.
27.	Cash BD, Riddle MS, Bhattacharya I, et al. CT colonography of a Medicare-aged population: outcomes observed in an analysis of more than 1400 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 199(1):W27-34, 2012 Jul.
28.	Kim DH, Matkowskyj KA, Lubner MG, et al. Serrated Polyps at CT Colonography: Prevalence and Characteristics of the Serrated Polyp Spectrum. Radiology. 280(2):455-63, 2016 08.
29.	Lin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, Bean SI, Blasi PR. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 325(19):1978-1998, 2021 05 18.
30.	Sosna J, Sella T, Sy O, et al. Critical analysis of the performance of double-contrast barium enema for detecting colorectal polyps > or = 6 mm in the era of CT colonography. [Review] [126 refs]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 190(2):374-85, 2008 Feb.
31.	Hsu WF, Su CW, Hsu CY, et al. Double-contrast barium enema is no longer justified as a backup examination for colonoscopy in the population screening program: Population study in an organized fecal immunochemical test-based screening program. Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 38(8):1299-1306, 2023 Aug.
32.	Ott DJ, Chen YM, Gelfand DW, Wu WC, Munitz HA. Single-contrast vs double-contrast barium enema in the detection of colonic polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986; 146(5):993-996.
33.	Macari M, Bini EJ, Jacobs SL, et al. Colorectal polyps and cancers in asymptomatic average-risk patients: evaluation with CT colonography. Radiology. 230(3):629-36, 2004 Mar.
34.	Kim YS, Kim N, Kim SH, et al. The efficacy of intravenous contrast-enhanced 16-raw multidetector CT colonography for detecting patients with colorectal polyps in an asymptomatic population in Korea. J Clin Gastroenterol. 42(7):791-8, 2008 Aug.
35.	Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, et al. Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 13(1):55-64, 2012 Jan.
36.	Zalis ME, Blake MA, Cai W, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of laxative-free computed tomographic colonography for detection of adenomatous polyps in asymptomatic adults: a prospective evaluation. Ann Intern Med. 156(10):692-702, 2012 May 15.
37.	Lefere P, Silva C, Gryspeerdt S, et al. Teleradiology based CT colonography to screen a population group of a remote island; at average risk for colorectal cancer. Eur J Radiol. 82(6):e262-7, 2013 Jun.
38.	Fletcher JG, Silva AC, Fidler JL, et al. Noncathartic CT colonography: Image quality assessment and performance and in a screening cohort. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 201(4):787-94, 2013 Oct.
39.	Regge D, Iussich G, Segnan N, et al. Comparing CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomised trial within a population-based screening programme. Gut. 66(8):1434-1440, 2017 08.
40.	Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R. Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection--systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Radiology. 259(2):393-405, 2011 May.
41.	Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, et al. CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med. 357(14):1403-12, 2007 Oct 04.
42.	Pickhardt PJ, Pooler BD, Mbah I, Weiss JM, Kim DH. Colorectal Findings at Repeat CT Colonography Screening after Initial CT Colonography Screening Negative for Polyps Larger than 5 mm. Radiology. 282(1):139-148, 2017 Jan.
43.	Pooler BD, Kim DH, Matkowskyj KA, et al. Natural History of Colorectal Polyps Undergoing Longitudinal in Vivo CT Colonography Surveillance. Radiology 2024;310:e232078.
44.	Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of advanced neoplasia in individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA. 301(23):2453-61, 2009 Jun 17.
45.	Fini L, Laghi L, Hassan C, et al. Noncathartic CT colonography to screen for colorectal neoplasia in subjects with a family history of colorectal cancer. Radiology. 270(3):784-90, 2014 Mar.
46.	Van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J, et al. Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2004;127:41-8.
47.	Devir C, Kebapci M, Temel T, Ozakyol A. Comparison of 64-Detector CT Colonography and Conventional Colonoscopy in the Detection of Colorectal Lesions. Iran J Radiol 2016;13:e19518.
48.	Pickhardt PJ, Mbah I, Pooler BD, et al. CT Colonographic Screening of Patients With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer: Comparison With Adults at Average Risk and Implications for Guidelines. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 208(4):794-800, 2017 Apr.
49.	Eaden JA, Abrams KR, Mayberry JF. The risk of colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis. Gut. 2001;48(4):526-535.
50.	Giardiello FM, Allen JI, Axilbund JE, et al. Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of Lynch syndrome: a consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Diseases of the colon and rectum 2014;57:1025-48.
51.	van Liere E, de Boer NKH, Dekker E, van Leerdam ME, de Meij TGJ, Ramsoekh D. Systematic review: non-endoscopic surveillance for colorectal neoplasia in individuals with Lynch syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2022;55:778-88.
52.	Jarvinen HJ, Mecklin JP, Sistonen P. Screening reduces colorectal cancer rate in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 1995; 108(5):1405-1411.
53.	Franco DL, Leighton JA, Gurudu SR. Approach to Incomplete Colonoscopy: New Techniques and Technologies. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2017;13:476-83.
54.	Kim SY, Park SH, Choi EK, et al. Automated carbon dioxide insufflation for CT colonography: effectiveness of colonic distention in cancer patients with severe luminal narrowing. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 190(3):698-706, 2008 Mar.
55.	Adloff M, Arnaud JP, Bergamaschi R, Schloegel M. Synchronous carcinoma of the colon and rectum: prognostic and therapeutic implications. Am J Surg 1989;157:299-302.
56.	Mulder SA, Kranse R, Damhuis RA, et al. Prevalence and prognosis of synchronous colorectal cancer: a Dutch population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol 2011;35:442-7.
57.	Huang CS, Yang SH, Lin CC, et al. Synchronous and Metachronous Colorectal Cancers: Distinct Disease Entities or Different Disease Courses? Hepatogastroenterology 2015;62:838-42.
58.	Bat L, Neumann G, Shemesh E. The association of synchronous neoplasms with occluding colorectal cancer. Diseases of the colon and rectum 1985;28:149-51.
59.	Park SH, Lee JH, Lee SS, et al. CT colonography for detection and characterisation of synchronous proximal colonic lesions in patients with stenosing colorectal cancer. Gut. 61(12):1716-22, 2012 Dec.
60.	Horvat N, Raj A, Ward JM, Smith JJ, Markowitz AJ, Gollub MJ. Clinical Value of CT Colonography Versus Preoperative Colonoscopy in the Surgical Management of Occlusive Colorectal Cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 210(2):333-340, 2018 Feb.
61.	American College of Radiology. ACR–SIR Practice Parameter For Minimal and/or Moderate Sedation/Analgesia. Available at https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=95+&releaseId=2
62.	Macari M, Berman P, Dicker M, Milano A, Megibow AJ. Usefulness of CT colonography in patients with incomplete colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999; 173(3):561-564.
63.	Morrin MM, Kruskal JB, Farrell RJ, Goldberg SN, McGee JB, Raptopoulos V. Endoluminal CT colonography after an incomplete endoscopic colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999; 172(4):913-918.
64.	Neri E, Giusti P, Battolla L, et al. Colorectal cancer: role of CT colonography in preoperative evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy. Radiology. 223(3):615-9, 2002 Jun.
65.	Sali L, Falchini M, Bonanomi AG, et al. CT colonography after incomplete colonoscopy in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test. World J Gastroenterol. 14(28):4499-504, 2008 Jul 28.
66.	Copel L, Sosna J, Kruskal JB, Raptopoulos V, Farrell RJ, Morrin MM. CT colonography in 546 patients with incomplete colonoscopy. Radiology. 244(2):471-8, 2007 Aug.
67.	Spada C, Hassan C, Barbaro B, et al. Colon capsule versus CT colonography in patients with incomplete colonoscopy: a prospective, comparative trial. Gut. 64(2):272-81, 2015 Feb.
68.	Pullens HJ, van Leeuwen MS, Laheij RJ, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD. CT-colonography after incomplete colonoscopy: what is the diagnostic yield?. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 56(5):593-9, 2013 May.
69.	Theis J, Kim DH, Lubner MG, Munoz del Rio A, Pickhardt PJ. CT colonography after incomplete optical colonoscopy: bowel preparation quality at same-day vs. deferred examination. Abdom Radiol. 41(1):10-8, 2016 Jan.
70.	Kao KT, Tam M, Sekhon H, Wijeratne R, Haigh PI, Abbas MA. Should barium enema be the next step following an incomplete colonoscopy? Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010;25(11):1353-1357.
71.	Brown AL, Skehan SJ, Greaney T, Rawlinson J, Somers S, Stevenson GW. Value of double-contrast barium enema performed immediately after incomplete colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(4):943-945.
72.	Martinez F, Kondylis P, Reilly J. Limitations of barium enema performed as an adjunct to incomplete colonoscopy. Diseases of the colon and rectum 2005;48:1951-4.
73.	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
74.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination