Literature DB >> 16189765

Missed lesions and false-positive findings on computed-tomographic colonography: a controlled prospective analysis.

R B Arnesen1, S Adamsen, L B Svendsen, H O Raaschou, E von Benzon, O H Hansen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The aim of the present study was to analyze the reasons for false findings on computed-tomographic (CT) colonography. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive CT colonography examinations were carried out before conventional colonoscopies scheduled on the same day. Before the study, an experienced radiologist received training in analyzing CT colonographies. The radiologists and endoscopists were blinded to each others' findings. The patients received standard polyethylene glycol bowel preparation and were scanned in the prone and supine positions using a helical CT scanner and commercially available software for image analysis. Each pair of examinations was later followed by an unblinded analysis, comparing the CT colonographies with video recordings of the conventional colonographies in order to determine the reasons for tumors being missed or false-positive diagnoses arising on CT colonography.
RESULTS: Ninety polyps were detected in 41 patients. For patients with tumors > or = 5 mm and > or = 10 mm, the sensitivity was 67 % and 75 %, respectively, and the specificity was 84 % and 95 %, respectively. The most important reasons for the 38 false findings of tumors > or = 5 mm were perception errors (21 of 38) and misinterpretation of flat lesions in particular, including a high-grade dysplasia and a flat elevated Dukes A carcinoma. Residual stool was frequently the reason for misinterpreting lesions > or = 10 mm (four of 10).
CONCLUSIONS: Perception errors were the main reason for false findings of lesions > or = 5 mm, including one flat malignant lesion. Residual stool caused four of 10 false findings for lesions > or = 10 mm. Reading CT colonographies requires a high level of expertise, and conventional colonography is still regarded as the gold standard for detecting colorectal lesions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16189765     DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-870270

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  8 in total

1.  Computed Tomographic (CT) Colonography for Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Evidence-Based Analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2009-09-01

2.  Screening methods for early detection of colorectal cancers and polyps: summary of evidence-based analyses.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2009-09-01

Review 3.  Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection--systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Cesare Hassan; Steve Halligan; Riccardo Marmo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Laterally spreading tumors: limitations of computed tomography colonography.

Authors:  Kazutomo Togashi; Kenichi Utano; Shigeyoshi Kijima; Yosuke Sato; Hisanaga Horie; Keijirou Sunada; Alan T Lefor; Hideharu Sugimoto; Yoshikazu Yasuda
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-14       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Effect of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a multireader, multicase trial.

Authors:  Abraham H Dachman; Nancy A Obuchowski; Jeffrey W Hoffmeister; J Louis Hinshaw; Michael I Frew; Thomas C Winter; Robert L Van Uitert; Senthil Periaswamy; Ronald M Summers; Bruce J Hillman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Diagnosis of rectal cancer by Tissue Resonance Interaction Method.

Authors:  Alberto Vannelli; Luigi Battaglia; Elia Poiasina; Ermanno Leo
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-05-12       Impact factor: 3.067

7.  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

8.  MR colonography vs. optical colonoscopy: comparison of patients' acceptance in a screening population.

Authors:  Sonja Kinner; Christiane A Kuehle; Jost Langhorst; Susanne C Ladd; Michael Nuefer; Thomas Zoepf; Joerg Barkhausen; Guido Gerken; Thomas C Lauenstein
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-05-24       Impact factor: 5.315

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.