Literature DB >> 11232681

Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study.

G Spinzi1, G Belloni, A Martegani, A Sangiovanni, C Del Favero, G Minoli.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Computed tomographic (CT) colonography or virtual colonoscopy is a new diagnostic method for the colon and rectum, developed on the basis of spiral computed axial tomography and employing virtual reality technology. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of CT colonography compared with colonoscopy in a prospective, blinded study in one single institution in Italy.
METHODS: Ninety-nine patients randomly selected among those attending the open-access endoscopy unit for diagnostic colonoscopy underwent colonoscopy and spiral CT. The images obtained were transmitted to generate the virtual colonoscopy pictures. A supervisor compared the results with the findings of conventional colonoscopy.
RESULTS: CT colonography diagnosed seven of eight tumors, one being missed because the patient had been inadequately prepared. In 28 patients, CT colonography identified 26 polyps of 45 (57.8% sensitivity, 92.6% specificity, 86.7% positive predictive value), regardless of their size. The sensitivity in detecting colonic polyps was 31.8% (7/22) in the first 25 cases and 91.6% (11/12) in the last 20 patients. CT colonography missed one flat adenoma, some angioectasias and colonic lesions because of portal hypertension in one patient, Crohn's disease ulcers in two patients, and ulcerative colitis lesions in three.
CONCLUSIONS: CT colonography shows poor sensitivity for identifying colonic polyps and does not always detect neoplastic lesions. Flat lesions are impossible to see by this method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11232681     DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03550.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  20 in total

1.  The virtuosity of virtuality or how real is virtual colonography.

Authors:  H Herfarth; A G Schreyer
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 2.  Virtual endoscopy: current perspectives.

Authors:  Hajime Kuwayama; Mamoru Iimuro; Yoshinori Kitazumi; Gordon Luk
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 7.527

Review 3.  Colonoscopy vs CT colonography to screen for colorectal neoplasia in average-risk patients.

Authors:  J M Hardacre; J L Ponsky; M E Baker
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Combined PET/CT colonography: is this the way forward?

Authors:  A G Schreyer; R Kikinis
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Magnetic resonance colonography for the detection of inflammatory diseases of the large bowel: quantifying the inflammatory activity.

Authors:  W M Ajaj; T C Lauenstein; G Pelster; G Gerken; S G Ruehm; J F Debatin; S C Goehde
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training.

Authors:  Andrew Slater; Stuart A Taylor; Emily Tam; Louise Gartner; Julia Scarth; Chand Peiris; Arun Gupta; Michele Marshall; David Burling; Steve Halligan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-05-16       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Andrea Laghi; Philippe Lefere; Steve Halligan; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Diagnostic performance of CT colonography for the detection of colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Ji-young Yun; Hee Jeong Ro; Jong Beom Park; Jung-Bin Choi; Ji Eun Chung; Yong Jin Kim; Won Hyuck Suh; Jong Kyun Lee
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.500

9.  Magnetic resonance imaging based colonography for diagnosis and assessment of diverticulosis and diverticulitis.

Authors:  Andreas G Schreyer; Alois Fürst; Ayman Agha; Ron Kikinis; Karl Scheibl; Jürgen Schölmerich; Stefan Feuerbach; Hans Herfarth; Johannes Seitz
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers?

Authors:  Ayso H de Vries; Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Shandra Bipat; Roel Truyen; Iwo W O Serlie; Rutger H Cohen; Saskia G C van Elderen; Anneke Heutinck; Oskar Kesselring; Wouter de Monyé; Lambertus te Strake; Tjeerd Wiersma; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-03-20       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.