PURPOSE: To evaluate the reasons for misdiagnosis of gastric carcinoma at upper gastrointestinal radiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Upper gastrointestinal radiographs obtained within 3 years prior to diagnosis of gastric carcinoma in 336 patients were selected. Two radiologists who were initially blinded and then unblinded to the diagnosis reviewed the radiographs. Decisions were made by means of consensus. The reason for misdiagnosis was classified as perceptual error when the lesion was identified correctly at the blinded review, as possible perceptual error when the lesion was identified only at the unblinded review, and as technical error when the lesion could not be identified at either review and technical deficiencies were thought to be the cause. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients underwent upper gastrointestinal radiography within 3 years prior to diagnosis of 27 carcinomas. The reason for misdiagnosis was classified as perceptual error in 11, as possible perceptual error in four, and as technical error in five lesions. In the remaining seven lesions, the lesion could not be identified at either review, and technical deficiencies were not thought to be the cause. The most common overlooked finding was depression (10 of 15), and the most common presumed technical error was incomplete compression study (seven of 11). CONCLUSION: Careful attention should be paid to detect limited barium pooling during double-contrast studies to avoid overlooking depressions.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reasons for misdiagnosis of gastric carcinoma at upper gastrointestinal radiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Upper gastrointestinal radiographs obtained within 3 years prior to diagnosis of gastric carcinoma in 336 patients were selected. Two radiologists who were initially blinded and then unblinded to the diagnosis reviewed the radiographs. Decisions were made by means of consensus. The reason for misdiagnosis was classified as perceptual error when the lesion was identified correctly at the blinded review, as possible perceptual error when the lesion was identified only at the unblinded review, and as technical error when the lesion could not be identified at either review and technical deficiencies were thought to be the cause. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients underwent upper gastrointestinal radiography within 3 years prior to diagnosis of 27 carcinomas. The reason for misdiagnosis was classified as perceptual error in 11, as possible perceptual error in four, and as technical error in five lesions. In the remaining seven lesions, the lesion could not be identified at either review, and technical deficiencies were not thought to be the cause. The most common overlooked finding was depression (10 of 15), and the most common presumed technical error was incomplete compression study (seven of 11). CONCLUSION: Careful attention should be paid to detect limited barium pooling during double-contrast studies to avoid overlooking depressions.
Authors: Carlos Shuler Nin; Edson Marchiori; Klaus Loureiro Irion; Artur de Oliveira Paludo; Giordano Rafael Tronco Alves; Daniela Reis Hochhegger; Bruno Hochhegger Journal: J Bras Pneumol Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.624