A Leslie1, J P Virjee. 1. Department of Clinical Radiology, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK. annaleslie@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity of double contrast barium enema (DCBE) in the detection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) when double reporting is routinely performed. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Over a 1-year period all patients with a diagnosis of CRC within a large teaching hospital were identified. Using computer records, any patient with CRC who had had a DCBE within 5 years of diagnosis was identified. During this time period all DCBE were double reported by the radiographer or radiology trainee who performed the enema and by a consultant radiologist specializing in gastrointestinal radiology. RESULTS: Over the 1-year period 169 patients were identified with a diagnosis of CRC. Seventy patients had had a DCBE within the preceding 5 years. Sixty-four patients had had CRC diagnosed on the DCBE. One patient had a sessile polyp diagnosed, which was removed at colonoscopy and found to be an invasive adenocarcinoma. In five cases (7%) the CRC was not diagnosed on DCBE. In three cases the lesions could be seen retrospectively, in one case the lesion could not be seen and in one case the examination had been incomplete. CONCLUSION: In our series the miss-rate for CRC was 7%. Previous studies have shown miss-rates of 15-24%. These studies have not routinely employed double reporting. Our results suggest that double reporting of DCBE significantly reduces the miss-rate and that this reduction is due to fewer perceptive errors. Copyright 2002 The Royal College of Radiologists.
PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity of double contrast barium enema (DCBE) in the detection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) when double reporting is routinely performed. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Over a 1-year period all patients with a diagnosis of CRC within a large teaching hospital were identified. Using computer records, any patient with CRC who had had a DCBE within 5 years of diagnosis was identified. During this time period all DCBE were double reported by the radiographer or radiology trainee who performed the enema and by a consultant radiologist specializing in gastrointestinal radiology. RESULTS: Over the 1-year period 169 patients were identified with a diagnosis of CRC. Seventy patients had had a DCBE within the preceding 5 years. Sixty-four patients had had CRC diagnosed on the DCBE. One patient had a sessile polyp diagnosed, which was removed at colonoscopy and found to be an invasive adenocarcinoma. In five cases (7%) the CRC was not diagnosed on DCBE. In three cases the lesions could be seen retrospectively, in one case the lesion could not be seen and in one case the examination had been incomplete. CONCLUSION: In our series the miss-rate for CRC was 7%. Previous studies have shown miss-rates of 15-24%. These studies have not routinely employed double reporting. Our results suggest that double reporting of DCBE significantly reduces the miss-rate and that this reduction is due to fewer perceptive errors. Copyright 2002 The Royal College of Radiologists.
Authors: Boaz Karmazyn; Elise M Miller; Sara E Lay; James M Massey; Matthew R Wanner; Megan B Marine; S Gregory Jennings; Fangqian Ouyang; Roberta A Hibbard Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2017-02-24
Authors: D R McArthur; H Mehrzad; R Patel; J Dadds; A Pallan; S S Karandikar; S Roy-Choudhury Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 5.315