Alan S Rosman1, Mark A Korsten. 1. Section of Gastroenterology and Medicine Program, James J. Peters VA Medical Center and Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10468, USA. Alan.Rosman@Med.VA.Gov
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Published studies have reported a wide range of sensitivities and specificities for computed tomographic (CT) colonography for polyp detection, generating controversy regarding its diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: A meta-analysis of published studies comparing the accuracies of CT colonography and colonoscopy for polyp detection was performed. The pooled per-patient sensitivities and specificities were calculated at various thresholds for polyp size. Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were also constructed. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included in the meta-analysis of CT colonography. The pooled per-patient sensitivity of CT colonography was higher for polyps greater than 10 mm (0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.88) compared with polyps 6 to 10 mm (0.63, 95% CI, 0.52-0.75) and polyps 0 to 5 mm (0.56, 95% CI, 0.42-0.70). Similarly, the exact area under the sROC curve (area +/- standard error) was higher using a threshold greater than 10 mm (0.898 +/- 0.063) compared with thresholds of greater than 5 mm and any size (0.884 +/- 0.033 and 0.822 +/- 0.059, respectively). There were no significant differences in the diagnostic characteristics of 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional CT colonography. At a threshold greater than 5 mm, the exact area under the sROC curve was significantly higher for endoscopic colonoscopy compared with CT colonography (0.998 +/- 0.006 vs 0.884 +/- 0.033, P < .005). CONCLUSIONS: CT colonography has a reasonable sensitivity and specificity for detecting large polyps but was less accurate than endoscopic colonoscopy for smaller polyps. Thus, CT colonography may not be a reasonable alternative in situations in which a small polyp may be clinically relevant.
INTRODUCTION: Published studies have reported a wide range of sensitivities and specificities for computed tomographic (CT) colonography for polyp detection, generating controversy regarding its diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: A meta-analysis of published studies comparing the accuracies of CT colonography and colonoscopy for polyp detection was performed. The pooled per-patient sensitivities and specificities were calculated at various thresholds for polyp size. Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were also constructed. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included in the meta-analysis of CT colonography. The pooled per-patient sensitivity of CT colonography was higher for polyps greater than 10 mm (0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.88) compared with polyps 6 to 10 mm (0.63, 95% CI, 0.52-0.75) and polyps 0 to 5 mm (0.56, 95% CI, 0.42-0.70). Similarly, the exact area under the sROC curve (area +/- standard error) was higher using a threshold greater than 10 mm (0.898 +/- 0.063) compared with thresholds of greater than 5 mm and any size (0.884 +/- 0.033 and 0.822 +/- 0.059, respectively). There were no significant differences in the diagnostic characteristics of 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional CT colonography. At a threshold greater than 5 mm, the exact area under the sROC curve was significantly higher for endoscopic colonoscopy compared with CT colonography (0.998 +/- 0.006 vs 0.884 +/- 0.033, P < .005). CONCLUSIONS: CT colonography has a reasonable sensitivity and specificity for detecting large polyps but was less accurate than endoscopic colonoscopy for smaller polyps. Thus, CT colonography may not be a reasonable alternative in situations in which a small polyp may be clinically relevant.
Authors: G L Baiocchi; G Mazza; C Baronchelli; E Marchina; G A M Tiberio; L Grazioli; N Portolani; S M Giulini Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2012-09
Authors: Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; James E Savarino; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: L Sali; M Falchini; P Della Monica; D Regge; A G Bonanomi; G Castiglione; G Grazzini; M Zappa; F Mungai; C Volpe; M Mascalchi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-07-31 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Ervin Toth; Diana E Yung; Artur Nemeth; Gabriele Wurm Johansson; Henrik Thorlacius; Anastasios Koulaouzidis Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2017-05
Authors: Ian C Roberts-Thomson; Graeme R Tucker; Peter J Hewett; Peter Cheung; Ruben A Sebben; E E Win Khoo; Julie D Marker; Wayne K Clapton Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2008-01-21 Impact factor: 5.742