Literature DB >> 15520999

Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps.

Riccardo Iannaccone1, Andrea Laghi, Carlo Catalano, Filippo Mangiapane, Antonietta Lamazza, Alberto Schillaci, Giovanni Sinibaldi, Takamichi Murakami, Paolo Sammartino, Masatoshi Hori, Francesca Piacentini, Italo Nofroni, Vincenzo Stipa, Roberto Passariello.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We prospectively compared the performance of low-dose multidetector computed tomographic colonography (CTC) without cathartic preparation with that of colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.
METHODS: A total of 203 patients underwent low-dose CTC without cathartic preparation followed by colonoscopy. Before CTC, fecal tagging was achieved by adding diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium to regular meals. No subtraction of tagged feces was performed. Colonoscopy was performed 3-7 days after CTC. Three readers interpreted the CTC examinations separately and independently using a primary 2-dimensional approach using multiplanar reconstructions and 3-dimensional images for further characterization. Colonoscopy with segmental unblinding was used as reference standard. The sensitivity of CTC was calculated both on a per-polyp and a per-patient basis. For the latter, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were also calculated.
RESULTS: CTC had an average sensitivity of 95.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.1%-99%) for the identification of colorectal polyps > or =8 mm. With regard to per-patient analysis, CTC yielded an average sensitivity of 89.9% (95% CI, 86%-93.7%), an average specificity of 92.2% (95% CI, 89.5%-94.9%), an average positive predictive value of 88% (95% CI, 83.3%-91.5%), and an average negative predictive value of 93.5% (95% CI, 90.9%-96%). Interobserver agreement was high on a per-polyp basis (kappa statistic range, .61-.74) and high to excellent on a per-patient basis (kappa statistic range, .79-.91).
CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose multidetector CTC without cathartic preparation compares favorably with colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15520999     DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.08.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  62 in total

1.  National CT colonography trial (ACRIN 6664): comparison of three full-laxative bowel preparations in more than 2500 average-risk patients.

Authors:  Amy K Hara; Mark D Kuo; Meridith Blevins; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Judy Yee; Abraham Dachman; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; C Daniel Johnson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Laxative-free CT colonography.

Authors:  A Slater; M Betts; H D'Costa
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Diagnostic accuracy of translucency rendering to differentiate polyps from pseudopolyps at 3D endoluminal CT colonography: a feasibility study.

Authors:  A Guerrisi; D Marin; A Laghi; M Di Martino; F Iafrate; R Iannaccone; C Catalano; R Passariello
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  Screening for colon cancer.

Authors:  J P Heiken
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2006-10-31       Impact factor: 3.909

Review 5.  Current status of CT colonography.

Authors:  Suzanne M Frentz; Ronald M Summers
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Effective radiation doses in CT colonography: results of an inventory among research institutions.

Authors:  Sebastiaan Jensch; Rogier E van Gelder; Henk W Venema; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Johan S Laméris; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-01-18       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  The future of virtual colonography. Interview by Paul C Adams.

Authors:  Helen Fenlon
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.522

8.  Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training.

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

Review 9.  Computed tomography colonography in 2014: an update on technique and indications.

Authors:  Andrea Laghi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.