Literature DB >> 12540025

Validation of virtual colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps and masses: rationale for proper study design.

B C Pineau1, E D Paskett, G J Chen, V L Durkalski, M A Espeland, D J Vining.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer, the second-leading cause of cancer-related mortality, is a preventable malignancy in many cases. Despite the availability of several screening modalities, compliance with screening recommendations remains unacceptably low. Virtual colonoscopy is a novel, minimally-invasive technique with the potential to increase colorectal cancer screening rates, but its effectiveness must first be validated. Published studies comparing virtual colonoscopy to conventional colonoscopy have reported varying results. These discrepancies may be attributed to differences in bowel preparation and scanning techniques, as well as errors in endoscopic lesion measurement, endoscopic colonic segmental localization, and the ability of conventional colonoscopy to actually detect lesions. These methodological issues can affect scientific results and ultimately affect the public's perception of this emerging technique. AIM: The goal of this report is to expose existing methodological shortcomings and propose solutions incorporated in this study design. This article describes the rationale, study design, and outcome definitions of a single-center, blinded, direct comparative trial aiming at assessing the ability of virtual colonoscopy to detect colorectal polyps and masses relative to the criterion standard, conventional colonoscopy. DESIGN FEATURES: Bowel preparation was standardized using oral sodium phosphate lavage, orally administered iodinated contrast, and controlled colonic insufflation. Segmental unblinding allowed a second-look when results were discrepant and polyp matching was performed using an algorithm based on segmental localization and lesion size determination.
CONCLUSIONS: This methodology could be applied to other studies assessing the accuracy of virtual colonoscopy in order to have uniformity of results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 12540025     DOI: 10.1385/IJGC:30:3:133

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gastrointest Cancer        ISSN: 1537-3649


  23 in total

1.  Virtual endoscopy: is it reality?

Authors:  D J Vining
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Virtual colonoscopy: what will the issues be?

Authors:  H M Fenlon; J T Ferrucci
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Detection of colorectal polyps with CT colography: initial assessment of sensitivity and specificity.

Authors:  A K Hara; C D Johnson; J E Reed; D A Ahlquist; H Nelson; R L MacCarty; W S Harmsen; D M Ilstrup
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers. Also: update 2001--testing for early lung cancer detection.

Authors:  R A Smith; A C von Eschenbach; R Wender; B Levin; T Byers; D Rothenberger; D Brooks; W Creasman; C Cohen; C Runowicz; D Saslow; V Cokkinides; H Eyre
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Cancer statistics, 2002.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Andrea Thomas; Taylor Murray; Michael Thun
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2002 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  Magnetic imaging of colonoscopy: an audit of looping, accuracy and ancillary maneuvers.

Authors:  S G Shah; B P Saunders; J C Brooker; C B Williams
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate?

Authors:  N Gopalswamy; V N Shenoy; U Choudhry; R J Markert; N Peace; M S Bhutani; C J Barde
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  The pathologic measurement of polyp size is preferable to the endoscopic estimate.

Authors:  R E Schoen; L D Gerber; C Margulies
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients.

Authors:  J G Fletcher; C D Johnson; T J Welch; R L MacCarty; D A Ahlquist; J E Reed; W S Harmsen; L A Wilson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy).

Authors:  P Pescatore; T Glücker; J Delarive; R Meuli; D Pantoflickova; B Duvoisin; P Schnyder; A L Blum; G Dorta
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 23.059

View more
  4 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Steven J Heitman; Braden J Manns; Robert J Hilsden; Andrew Fong; Stafford Dean; Joseph Romagnuolo
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  CT colonography for surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy.

Authors:  François Porté; Mallikarjuna Uppara; George Malietzis; Omar Faiz; Steve Halligan; Thanos Athanasiou; David Burling
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk North Americans: an economic evaluation.

Authors:  Steven J Heitman; Robert J Hilsden; Flora Au; Scot Dowden; Braden J Manns
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 11.069

4.  Scoring colorectal cancer risk with an artificial neural network based on self-reportable personal health data.

Authors:  Bradley J Nartowt; Gregory R Hart; David A Roffman; Xavier Llor; Issa Ali; Wazir Muhammad; Ying Liang; Jun Deng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.