Literature DB >> 18176807

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

S Punwani1, S Halligan, P Irving, S Bloom, A Bungay, R Greenhalgh, J Godbold, S A Taylor, D G Altman.   

Abstract

The purpose was to determine the accuracy of polyp measurement by endoscopy and CT. A colonic phantom was constructed containing 12 simulated polyps of known diameter. Polyp diameter was estimated during endoscopy by two observers independently. The phantom was then scanned using a 64-detector-row machine and diameter estimated by a further two observers independently, using 2D and 3D visualisation methods. All measurements were obtained twice. Bland-Altman statistics were used to assess agreement between observers' estimates and the reference diameter. The mean difference between observers' measurements and the reference diameter was smallest for estimates made using 3D CT (-0.09 mm and -0.03 mm) and greatest for endoscopy (-1.10 mm and -1.19 mm), with 2D CT intermediate. However, 95% limits of agreement were largest for 3D CT estimates (-4.38 mm to 4.20 mm). Estimates by 2D CT consistently overestimated polyp diameter, whereas endoscopy consistently underestimated diameter. In contrast, measurements by 3D CT were a combination of over- and under-estimates, with a tendency for disagreement to increase with the size of the polyp. The effect of observer experience was small and repeatability was best for 2D CT. Measurement error was encountered with all three modalities tested. Estimates made by 2D CT were believed to offer the best compromise overall.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18176807     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-007-0830-8

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


  20 in total

1.  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 2.  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

3.  European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Andrea Laghi; Philippe Lefere; Steve Halligan; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 5.315

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

Authors:  Seong Ho Park; Eugene K Choi; Seung Soo Lee; Jeong-Sik Byeon; Ji-Yun Jo; Young Hoon Kim; Kyoung Ho Lee; Hyun Kwon Ha; Joon Koo Han
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-05-16       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  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

6.  How accurate are endoscopic estimates of size?

Authors:  C Margulies; B Krevsky; M F Catalano
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1994 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 9.427

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.  Natural history of untreated colonic polyps.

Authors:  S J Stryker; B G Wolff; C E Culp; S D Libbe; D M Ilstrup; R L MacCarty
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Are endoscopic measurements of colonic polyps reliable?

Authors:  M B Fennerty; J Davidson; S S Emerson; R E Sampliner; L J Hixson; H S Garewal
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 10.864

View more
  9 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.  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

Review 3.  CT colonography for investigation of patients with symptoms potentially suggestive of colorectal cancer: a review of the UK SIGGAR trials.

Authors:  S Halligan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Computed Tomography Colonography Phantom: Construction, Validation and Literature Review.

Authors:  Lukas Lambert; Alena Lambertova; Jan Danes; Gabriela Grusova
Journal:  Iran J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 0.212

5.  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

6.  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

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

8.  CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers.

Authors:  Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Ayso H de Vries; Steve Halligan; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Abraham H Dachman; Evelien Dekker; Jasper Florie; Stefaan S Gryspeerdt; Sebastiaan Jensch; C Daniel Johnson; Andrea Laghi; Stuart A Taylor; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  CT colonography: size reduction of submerged colorectal polyps due to electronic cleansing and CT-window settings.

Authors:  Christian Bräuer; Philippe Lefere; Stefaan Gryspeerdt; Helmut Ringl; Ali Al-Mukhtar; Paul Apfaltrer; Dominik Berzaczy; Barbara Füger; Julia Furtner; Christina Müller-Mang; Matthias Pones; Martina Scharitzer; Ramona Woitek; Anno Graser; Michael Weber; Thomas Mang
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 5.315

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.