Literature DB >> 15547207

The effect of diagnostic confidence on the probability of optical colonoscopic confirmation of potential polyps detected on CT colonography: prospective assessment in 1,339 asymptomatic adults.

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

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the effect of interpreter confidence on the likelihood that a lesion detected on CT colonography (CTC) will correspond to a matched polyp seen on optical colonoscopy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Same-day CTC and optical colonoscopy were performed on 1,339 asymptomatic adults. A standard matching algorithm for polyp size and location was used. For each potential polyp detected on CTC, the level of diagnostic confidence was prospectively rated on a 3-point scale (1, least certain; 2, intermediate; and 3, most certain).
RESULTS: For CTC-detected lesions 6 mm or larger, diagnostic confidence levels of 1, 2, and 3 corresponded to matched polyps on optical colonoscopy in 33.3% (45/135), 50.0% (103/206), and 66.8% (157/235) of cases, respectively (p < 0.01). Similar trends were present for categories of lesions that measured 6-7 mm, 8-9 mm, and 10 mm or larger, rising to a match rate of 82.1% (55/67) for lesions 10 mm or larger that were diagnosed with a level-3 confidence rating. The likelihood that a matched polyp was adenomatous increased with greater levels of diagnostic confidence. Of note, level-3 confidence for lesions measuring 8-9 mm on CTC more often yielded a matching neoplasm on optical colonoscopy than level-1 or level-2 confidence for lesions measuring 10 mm or larger (60.3% [35/58] vs 20.8% [10/48]; p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Greater diagnostic confidence for an individual lesion detected on CTC correlates with a significantly increased likelihood that a matching polyp will be found on optical colonoscopy and that this matched polyp will be neoplastic. Although polyp size represents the primary criterion for CTC screening algorithms, this data could help guide the decision to opt for noninvasive CTC surveillance versus optical colonoscopy for polypectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15547207     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.183.6.01831661

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  11 in total

1.  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 2.  Missed lesions at CT colonography: lessons learned.

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

3.  Panoramic endoluminal display with minimal image distortion using circumferential radial ray-casting for primary three-dimensional interpretation of CT colonography.

Authors:  Seung Soo Lee; Seong Ho Park; Jin Kook Kim; Namkug Kim; Jeongjin Lee; Beom Jin Park; Young Jun Kim; Min Woo Lee; Ah Young Kim; Hyun Kwon Ha
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS): benchmark values from a clinical screening program.

Authors:  B Dustin Pooler; David H Kim; Vu P Lam; Elizabeth S Burnside; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Contrast coating for the surface of flat polyps at CT colonography: a marker for detection.

Authors:  David H Kim; J Louis Hinshaw; Meghan G Lubner; Alejandro Munoz del Rio; B Dustin Pooler; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-01-31       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Colorectal Findings at Repeat CT Colonography Screening after Initial CT Colonography Screening Negative for Polyps Larger than 5 mm.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; B Dustin Pooler; Ifeanyi Mbah; Jennifer M Weiss; David H Kim
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  CT Colonographic Screening of Patients With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer: Comparison With Adults at Average Risk and Implications for Guidelines.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Ifeanyi Mbah; B Dustin Pooler; Oliver T Chen; J Louis Hinshaw; Jennifer M Weiss; David H Kim
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Colorectal Polyps Missed with Optical Colonoscopy Despite Previous Detection and Localization with CT Colonography.

Authors:  B Dustin Pooler; David H Kim; Jennifer M Weiss; Kristina A Matkowskyj; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Positive predictive value for polyps detected at screening CT colonography.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Steven M Wise; David H Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Conspicuity of colorectal polyps at CT colonography: visual assessment, CAD performance, and the important role of polyp height.

Authors:  Ronald M Summers; Suzanne M Frentz; Jiamin Liu; Jianhua Yao; Linda Brown; Adeline Louie; Duncan S Barlow; Donald W Jensen; Andrew J Dwyer; Perry J Pickhardt; Nicholas Petrick
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.