BACKGROUND & AIMS: No multicenter study has been reported evaluating the performance and interobserver variability of computerized tomographic colonography. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of computerized tomographic colonography for detecting clinically important colorectal neoplasia (polyps >or=10 mm in diameter) in a multi-institutional study. METHODS: A retrospective study was developed from 341 patients who had computerized tomographic colonography and colonoscopy among 8 medical centers. Colonoscopy and pathology reports provided the standard. A random sample of 117 patients, stratified by criterion standard, was requested. Ninety-three patients were included (47% with polyps >or=10 mm; mean age, 62 years; 56% men; 84% white; 40% reported colorectal symptoms; 74% at increased risk for colorectal cancer). Eighteen radiologists blinded to the criterion standard interpreted computerized tomography colonography examinations, each using 2 of 3 different software display platforms. RESULTS: The average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for identifying patients with at least 1 lesion >or=10 mm was 0.80 (95% lower confidence bound, 0.74). The average sensitivity and specificity were 75% (95% lower confidence bound, 68%) and 73% (95% lower confidence bound, 66%), respectively. Per-polyp sensitivity was 75%. A trend was observed for better performance with more observer experience. There was no difference in performance across software display platforms. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized tomographic colonography performance compared favorably with reported performance of fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema. A prospective study evaluating the performance of computerized tomography colonography in a screening population is indicated.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: No multicenter study has been reported evaluating the performance and interobserver variability of computerized tomographic colonography. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of computerized tomographic colonography for detecting clinically important colorectal neoplasia (polyps >or=10 mm in diameter) in a multi-institutional study. METHODS: A retrospective study was developed from 341 patients who had computerized tomographic colonography and colonoscopy among 8 medical centers. Colonoscopy and pathology reports provided the standard. A random sample of 117 patients, stratified by criterion standard, was requested. Ninety-three patients were included (47% with polyps >or=10 mm; mean age, 62 years; 56% men; 84% white; 40% reported colorectal symptoms; 74% at increased risk for colorectal cancer). Eighteen radiologists blinded to the criterion standard interpreted computerized tomography colonography examinations, each using 2 of 3 different software display platforms. RESULTS: The average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for identifying patients with at least 1 lesion >or=10 mm was 0.80 (95% lower confidence bound, 0.74). The average sensitivity and specificity were 75% (95% lower confidence bound, 68%) and 73% (95% lower confidence bound, 66%), respectively. Per-polyp sensitivity was 75%. A trend was observed for better performance with more observer experience. There was no difference in performance across software display platforms. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized tomographic colonography performance compared favorably with reported performance of fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema. A prospective study evaluating the performance of computerized tomography colonography in a screening population is indicated.
Authors: David Burling; Steve Halligan; Douglas G Altman; Wendy Atkin; Clive Bartram; Helen Fenlon; Andrea Laghi; Jaap Stoker; Stuart Taylor; Roger Frost; Guido Dessey; Melinda De Villiers; Jasper Florie; Shane Foley; Lesley Honeyfield; Riccardo Iannaccone; Teresa Gallo; Clive Kay; Philippe Lefere; Andrew Lowe; Filipo Mangiapane; Jesse Marrannes; Emmanuele Neri; Giulia Nieddu; David Nicholson; Alan O'Hare; Sante Ori; Benedetta Politi; Martin Poulus; Daniele Regge; Lisa Renaut; Velauthan Rudralingham; Saverio Signoretta; Paola Vagli; Victor Van der Hulst; Jane Williams-Butt Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-04-25 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: Jamshid Dehmeshki; Steve Halligan; Stuart A Taylor; Mary E Roddie; Justine McQuillan; Lesley Honeyfield; Hamdan Amin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: David J Vanness; Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; Ilana F Gareen; Benjamin A Herman; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Eric J Feuer; Mei-Hsiu Chen; C Daniel Johnson Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ronald M Summers; Jianhua Yao; Perry J Pickhardt; Marek Franaszek; Ingmar Bitter; Daniel Brickman; Vamsi Krishna; J Richard Choi Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Amy K Hara; Meridith Blevins; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Abraham H Dachman; Mark D Kuo; Christine O Menias; Bettina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin J Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; Judy Yee; Benjamin A Herman; C Daniel Johnson Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Matthew T McKenna; Shijun Wang; Tan B Nguyen; Joseph E Burns; Nicholas Petrick; Ronald M Summers Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 8.545