Literature DB >> 16636803

Polyp measurement and size categorisation by CT colonography: effect of observer experience in a multi-centre setting.

David Burling1, Steve Halligan, Douglas G Altman, Wendy Atkin, Clive Bartram, Helen Fenlon, Andrea Laghi, Jaap Stoker, Stuart Taylor, Roger Frost, Guido Dessey, Melinda De Villiers, Jasper Florie, Shane Foley, Lesley Honeyfield, Riccardo Iannaccone, Teresa Gallo, Clive Kay, Philippe Lefere, Andrew Lowe, Filipo Mangiapane, Jesse Marrannes, Emmanuele Neri, Giulia Nieddu, David Nicholson, Alan O'Hare, Sante Ori, Benedetta Politi, Martin Poulus, Daniele Regge, Lisa Renaut, Velauthan Rudralingham, Saverio Signoretta, Paola Vagli, Victor Van der Hulst, Jane Williams-Butt.   

Abstract

The extent measurement error on CT colonography influences polyp categorisation according to established management guidelines is studied using twenty-eight observers of varying experience to classify polyps seen at CT colonography as either 'medium' (maximal diameter 6-9 mm) or 'large' (maximal diameter 10 mm or larger). Comparison was then made with the reference diameter obtained in each patient via colonoscopy. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess agreement between observer measurements and colonoscopy, and differences in measurement and categorisation was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-squared test statistics respectively. Observer measurements on average underestimated the diameter of polyps when compared to the reference value, by approximately 2-3 mm, irrespective of observer experience. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement were relatively wide for all observer groups, and had sufficient span to encompass different size categories for polyps. There were 167 polyp observations and 135 (81%) were correctly categorised. Of the 32 observations that were miscategorised, 5 (16%) were overestimations and 27 (84%) were underestimations (i.e. large polyps misclassified as medium). Caution should be exercised for polyps whose colonographic diameter is below but close to the 1-cm boundary threshold in order to avoid potential miscategorisation of advanced adenomas.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16636803     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0189-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  21 in total

1.  CT colonography practice in the UK: a national survey.

Authors:  D Burling; S Halligan; S A Taylor; S Usiskin; C I Bartram
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.350

2.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Self-referred whole-body CT imaging: current implications for health care consumers.

Authors:  Judy Illes; Ellen Fan; Barbara A Koenig; Thomas A Raffin; Dylan Kann; Scott W Atlas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Andrew D Lee; Elizabeth G McFarland; Andrew J Taylor
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal.

Authors:  Michael E Zalis; Matthew A Barish; J Richard Choi; Abraham H Dachman; Helen M Fenlon; Joseph T Ferrucci; Seth N Glick; Andrea Laghi; Michael Macari; Elizabeth G McFarland; Martina M Morrin; Perry J Pickhardt; Jorge Soto; Judy Yee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate?

Authors:  N Gopalswamy; V N Shenoy; U Choudhry; R J Markert; N Peace; M S Bhutani; C J Barde
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  The pathologic measurement of polyp size is preferable to the endoscopic estimate.

Authors:  R E Schoen; L D Gerber; C Margulies
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test.

Authors:  O Kronborg; C Fenger; J Olsen; O D Jørgensen; O Søndergaard
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Polyp size measurement at CT colonography: what do we know and what do we need to know?

Authors:  Ronald M Summers
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Computer assisted detection software for CT colonography: effect of sphericity filter on performance characteristics for patients with and without fecal tagging.

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

3.  CT colonography: Project of High National Interest No. 2005062137 of the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR).

Authors:  E Neri; A Laghi; D Regge; P Sacco; T Gallo; F Turini; E Talini; R Ferrari; M Mellaro; M Rengo; S Marchi; D Caramella; C Bartolozzi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2008-10-25       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  Evolution of Screen-Detected Small (6-9 mm) Polyps After a 3-Year Surveillance Interval: Assessment of Growth With CT Colonography Compared With Histopathology.

Authors:  Charlotte J Tutein Nolthenius; Thierry N Boellaard; Margriet C de Haan; C Yung Nio; Maarten G J Thomeer; Shandra Bipat; Alexander D Montauban van Swijndregt; Marc J van de Vijver; Katharina Biermann; Ernst J Kuipers; Evelien Dekker; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Variation of agreement in polyp size measurement between computed tomographic colonography and pathology assessment: clinical implications.

Authors:  Samir Gupta; Valerie Durkalski; Peter Cotton; Don C Rockey
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 6.  Fundamental elements for successful performance of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy).

Authors:  Seong Ho Park; Judy Yee; Se Hyung Kim; Young Hoon Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.500

7.  The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography.

Authors:  Emanuele Neri; Steve Halligan; Mikael Hellström; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Daniele Regge; Jaap Stoker; Stuart Taylor; Andrea Laghi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-09-15       Impact factor: 5.315

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.