Literature DB >> 15353426

Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy.

Perry J Pickhardt1, Pamela A Nugent, Pauline A Mysliwiec, J Richard Choi, William R Schindler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous estimates of the adenoma miss rate with optical colonoscopy (OC) are hindered by the use of OC as its own reference standard.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency and characteristics of colorectal neoplasms that are missed prospectively on OC by using virtual colonoscopy (VC) as a separate reference standard.
DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter screening trial.
SETTING: 3 medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: 1233 asymptomatic adults who underwent same-day VC and OC. MEASUREMENTS: Colorectal neoplasms (adenomatous polyps) missed at OC before VC results were unblinded.
RESULTS: Fourteen (93.3%) of 15 nonrectal neoplasms were located on a fold; 10 (71.4%) of these were located on the backside of a fold. Five (83.3%) of 6 rectal lesions were located within 10 cm of the anal verge. LIMITATIONS: Estimation of the OC miss rate depended on polyp detection on both VC and second-look OC and therefore underestimates the true OC miss rate, particularly for smaller polyps.
CONCLUSIONS: Most clinically significant adenomas missed prospectively on OC are located behind a fold or near the anal verge. The 12% OC miss rate for large adenomas (>or=10 mm) when state-of-the-art 3-dimensional VC is used as a separate reference standard is increased from the previous 0% to 6% estimates derived by using OC as its own reference standard.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15353426     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-5-200409070-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  104 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.  Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the medicare population.

Authors:  Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; James E Savarino; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Virtual colonoscopy vs optical colonoscopy.

Authors:  Zhengrong Liang; Robert Richards
Journal:  Expert Opin Med Diagn       Date:  2010-03-01

4.  Improving lesion detection during colonoscopy.

Authors:  Jerome D Waye
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2010-10

5.  The NordICC Study: rationale and design of a randomized trial on colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  M F Kaminski; M Bretthauer; A G Zauber; E J Kuipers; H-O Adami; M van Ballegooijen; J Regula; M van Leerdam; T Stefansson; L Påhlman; E Dekker; M A Hernán; K Garborg; G Hoff
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 10.093

6.  Expanding the view of a standard colonoscope with the Third Eye Panoramic cap.

Authors:  Moshe Rubin; Leigh Lurie; Konika Bose; Sang H Kim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  CT colonography for population screening: ready for prime time?

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Quality indicators for colorectal cancer screening for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen
Journal:  Tech Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-04

9.  Computed tomography colonography (virtual colonoscopy): climax of a new era of validation and transition into community practice.

Authors:  Jacob Thomas; Jeffrey Carenza; Elizabeth McFarland
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2008-08

10.  Polyp surveillance.

Authors:  W Donald Buie; Anthony R MacLean
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2008-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.