Matthew A Barish1, Jorge A Soto, Joseph T Ferrucci. 1. Department of Radiology, 3D and Image Processing Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA 02115, USA. mabarish@partners.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine the current opinions regarding the performance, interpretation, reporting, and clinical role of virtual colonoscopy among a group of selected experts to develop a consensus statement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 33 selected experts in virtual colonoscopy. Responses were tabulated and results were used to develop a consensus statement. The results of the questionnaire and consensus statement were sent to respondents for comment and approval. RESULTS: Thirty-one (93.9%) of 33 surveys were returned. Eighty-seven percent (27/31) of respondents believe virtual colonoscopy is a credible screening method. Oral sodium phosphate solution is the laxative preferred by more than 66% (18/27), whereas 62% (13/21) do not believe fecal tagging is necessary. All respondents (25/25) think that both prone and supine imaging is required, with most (81%, 21/26) believing IV contrast material is not necessary. The routine use of spasmolytics is suggested by only 15% (4/26). The largest acceptable slice thickness of 3 mm is agreed on by 88% (22/25). All respondents believe screening virtual colonoscopy should be performed at a lower dose per slice than conventional CT. Most (80%, 20/25) believe the optimum method of interpreting virtual colonoscopy should be primary axial review, with 3D used for problem solving. All but one respondent (96%, 26/27) agree there is a threshold size below which polyps are not clinically important. When reporting virtual colonoscopy results, 59% (16/27) believe polyps less than 4 mm need not be reported. CONCLUSION: A consensus is developing among experts as to the appropriate manner in which virtual colonoscopy should be performed, interpreted, and reported.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine the current opinions regarding the performance, interpretation, reporting, and clinical role of virtual colonoscopy among a group of selected experts to develop a consensus statement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 33 selected experts in virtual colonoscopy. Responses were tabulated and results were used to develop a consensus statement. The results of the questionnaire and consensus statement were sent to respondents for comment and approval. RESULTS: Thirty-one (93.9%) of 33 surveys were returned. Eighty-seven percent (27/31) of respondents believe virtual colonoscopy is a credible screening method. Oral sodium phosphate solution is the laxative preferred by more than 66% (18/27), whereas 62% (13/21) do not believe fecal tagging is necessary. All respondents (25/25) think that both prone and supine imaging is required, with most (81%, 21/26) believing IV contrast material is not necessary. The routine use of spasmolytics is suggested by only 15% (4/26). The largest acceptable slice thickness of 3 mm is agreed on by 88% (22/25). All respondents believe screening virtual colonoscopy should be performed at a lower dose per slice than conventional CT. Most (80%, 20/25) believe the optimum method of interpreting virtual colonoscopy should be primary axial review, with 3D used for problem solving. All but one respondent (96%, 26/27) agree there is a threshold size below which polyps are not clinically important. When reporting virtual colonoscopy results, 59% (16/27) believe polyps less than 4 mm need not be reported. CONCLUSION: A consensus is developing among experts as to the appropriate manner in which virtual colonoscopy should be performed, interpreted, and reported.
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: Maka Kekelidze; Luigia D'Errico; Michele Pansini; Anthony Tyndall; Joachim Hohmann Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 5.742