Literature DB >> 15247435

Nonadenomatous polyps at CT colonography: prevalence, size distribution, and detection rates.

Perry J Pickhardt1, J Richard Choi, Inku Hwang, William R Schindler.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively investigate with computed tomographic (CT) colonography the prevalence and size distribution of nonadenomatous polyps in asymptomatic adults and to compare the detection rates of adenomatous and nonadenomatous polyps.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1233 asymptomatic adults (mean age, 57.8 years; 505 women, 728 men) underwent same-day CT colonography and optical colonoscopy procedures. CT colonoscopy studies were interpreted prospectively with a primary three-dimensional approach immediately before optical colonoscopy. Statistical analysis was performed with the chi(2) test. Size, prevalence, and by-polyp detection differences were compared between adenomatous and nonadenomatous polyps.
RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-six (57.7%) colorectal polyps identified at optical colonoscopy in 410 (33.3%) patients were nonadenomatous; of these lesions, 622 (82.3%) were diminutive (</=5 mm). Nonadenomatous polyps accounted for 622 (64.4%) of 966 diminutive lesions and 134 (39.9%) of 344 polyps 6 mm or larger (P <.001). The prevalence rate for nonadenomatous polyps was 8.8% (109 of 1233 patients) and 2.0% (25 of 1233 patients) at 6- and 10-mm thresholds, respectively. CT colonography by-polyp sensitivity for nonadenomatous lesions was 73.1% (98 of 134 patients) and 73.3% (22 of 30 patients) at 6- and 10-mm thresholds, respectively, compared with 85.7% (180 of 210 patients) and 92.2% (47 of 51 patients) for adenomas (P <.01). In 1065 patients that did not have a 6-mm or larger adenoma at optical colonoscopy, CT colonography depicted a nonadenomatous polyp that was 6 mm or larger in 63 (5.9%) patients and a nonadenomatous polyp that was 10 mm or larger in 15 (1.4%) patients.
CONCLUSION: More than 80% of nonadenomatous polyps were diminutive, but they accounted for nearly 40% of polyps that were 6 mm or larger. Fortunately, CT colonography is significantly (P <.01) less sensitive in the detection of lesions that have no malignant potential when compared with similar-sized adenomas that have malignant potential. Copyright RSNA, 2004

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15247435     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2323031614

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  25 in total

Review 1.  Improving the accuracy of CTC interpretation: computer-aided detection.

Authors:  Ronald M Summers
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2010-04

2.  Carpet lesions detected at CT colonography: clinical, imaging, and pathologic features.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Vu P Lam; Jennifer M Weiss; Gregory D Kennedy; David H Kim
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Missed lesions at CT colonography: lessons learned.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2013-02

4.  Screening: CT colonography: time for clinical implementation.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 66.675

5.  Automated measurement of colorectal polyp height at CT colonography: hyperplastic polyps are flatter than adenomatous polyps.

Authors:  Ronald M Summers; Jiamin Liu; Jianhua Yao; Linda Brown; J Richard Choi; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Volumetric growth rates of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps observed in situ at longitudinal CT colonography.

Authors:  P J Pickhardt; B D Pooler; K A Matkowskyj; D H Kim; W M Grady; R B Halberg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Colonoscopy: the current king of the hill in the USA.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Time-efficient CT colonography interpretation using an advanced image-gallery-based, computer-aided "first-reader" workflow for the detection of colorectal adenomas.

Authors:  Thomas Mang; Gerardo Hermosillo; Matthias Wolf; Luca Bogoni; Marcos Salganicoff; Vikas Raykar; Helmut Ringl; Michael Weber; Christina Mueller-Mang; Anno Graser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-08-18       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Findings on serial surveillance colonoscopy in patients with low-risk polyps on initial colonoscopy.

Authors:  Jocelyne Miller; Neil Mehta; Michael Feldman; Emma Furth; Gregory G Ginsberg; Yu-Xiao Yang; James D Lewis
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.062

10.  At what costs will screening with CT colonography be competitive? A cost-effectiveness approach.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; Rob Boer; Janneke Wilschut; J Dik F Habbema
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.