Literature DB >> 17507724

Polyp measurement reliability, accuracy, and discrepancy: optical colonoscopy versus CT colonography with pig colonic specimens.

Seong Ho Park1, Eugene K Choi, Seung Soo Lee, Jeong-Sik Byeon, Ji-Yun Jo, Young Hoon Kim, Kyoung Ho Lee, Hyun Kwon Ha, Joon Koo Han.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the reliability and accuracy of optical colonoscopy and computed tomographic (CT) colonography in polyp measurement, by using direct measurement as the reference standard, and to understand the basis for measurement discrepancy between both modalities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-six simulated polyps that ranged from 3 to 15 mm were constructed by using pig colons obtained from an abattoir. Approval of the animal care and use committee for the study was not required. CT colonographic measurement was performed by two independent radiologists by using two-dimensional (2D) optimized multiplanar reformatted planes and three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal views. Optical colonoscopic measurement was performed by two independent gastroenterologists by using open biopsy forceps. Interobserver agreement, measurement error, measurement discrepancy defined as the result of subtracting the optical colonoscopic measurement from the CT colonographic measurement, and false-mismatch (ie, designation of matched polyps as mismatched between both modalities) rates according to different matching criteria were analyzed.
RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.879 (95% confidence interval: 0.780, 0.930) for optical colonoscopy, 0.979 (95% confidence interval: 0.956, 0.989) for 2D CT colonography, and 0.985 (95% confidence interval: 0.976, 0.990) for 3D CT colonography. The mean standardized polyp size +/- standard deviation for each observer was 76.3% +/- 14.7 and 85.3% +/- 18.8 for optical colonoscopy, 104.6% +/- 11.6 and 101.6% +/- 10.1 for 2D CT colonography, and 114% +/- 12.4 and 113.4% +/- 13.2 for 3D CT colonography. These values indicated that there was a statistically significant difference among the methods (P<.001). Measurement discrepancy was not proportional to polyp size. A percentage-of-error criterion showed increasing false-mismatch rates with decreasing polyp size, whereas a fixed margin-of-error criterion resulted in more uniform false-mismatch rates across polyp size.
CONCLUSION: CT colonography is more reliable and accurate than optical colonoscopy for polyp measurement. A fixed margin-of-error criterion is better than a percentage-of-error criterion for polyp matching between CT colonography and optical colonoscopy with open biopsy forceps. (c) RSNA, 2007.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17507724     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2441060794

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  14 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.  Diagnostic accuracy of translucency rendering to differentiate polyps from pseudopolyps at 3D endoluminal CT colonography: a feasibility study.

Authors:  A Guerrisi; D Marin; A Laghi; M Di Martino; F Iafrate; R Iannaccone; C Catalano; R Passariello
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Measurement of colonic polyps by radiologists and endoscopists: who is most accurate?

Authors:  S Punwani; S Halligan; P Irving; S Bloom; A Bungay; R Greenhalgh; J Godbold; S A Taylor; D G Altman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-01-04       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Endoscopic imaging and size estimation of colorectal adenomas in the multiple intestinal neoplasia mouse.

Authors:  Harvey H Hensley; Carrie E Merkel; Wen-Chi L Chang; Karthik Devarajan; Harry S Cooper; Margie L Clapper
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Noncathartic CT colonography: Image quality assessment and performance and in a screening cohort.

Authors:  Joel G Fletcher; Alvin C Silva; Jeff L Fidler; Joseph G Cernigliaro; Armando Manduca; Paul J Limburg; Lynn A Wilson; Trudy A Engelby; Garrett Spencer; W Scott Harmsen; Jay Mandrekar; C Daniel Johnson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Reduced cathartic bowel preparation for CT colonography: prospective comparison of 2-L polyethylene glycol and magnesium citrate.

Authors:  Alexander W Keedy; Judy Yee; Rizwan Aslam; Stefanie Weinstein; Luis A Landeras; Janak N Shah; Kenneth R McQuaid; Benjamin M Yeh
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Ultrasound virtual endoscopy: Polyp detection and reliability of measurement in an in vitro study with pig intestine specimens.

Authors:  Jin-Ya Liu; Li-Da Chen; Hua-Song Cai; Jin-Yu Liang; Ming Xu; Yang Huang; Wei Li; Shi-Ting Feng; Xiao-Yan Xie; Ming-De Lu; Wei Wang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 8.  CT colonography: pitfalls in interpretation.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; David H Kim
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 2.303

9.  Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences.

Authors:  Ayso H de Vries; Shandra Bipat; Evelien Dekker; Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Jasper Florie; Paul Fockens; Roel van der Kraan; Elizabeth M Mathus-Vliegen; Johannes B Reitsma; Roel Truyen; Frans M Vos; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  M H Liedenbaum; A F van Rijn; A H de Vries; H M Dekker; M Thomeer; C J van Marrewijk; L Hol; M G W Dijkgraaf; P Fockens; P M M Bossuyt; E Dekker; J Stoker
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 23.059

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.