Samir Gupta1, Valerie Durkalski, Peter Cotton, Don C Rockey. 1. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75390-8887, USA. samir.gupta@utsouthwestern.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinical management of polyps discovered by computed tomographic (CT) colonography depends on polyp size. However, size measured by CT colonography is an estimate, and its agreement with other measures is not well characterized. We hypothesized that size measurement by CT colonography varies substantially compared with measurement by other methods. METHODS: We performed a secondary data analysis of a multicenter study of CT colonography in comparison with colonoscopy. Polyp size was determined by CT colonography, at colonoscopy, and measurement prefixation with a ruler. Agreement was assessed using descriptive statistics and Bland-Altman methodology. RESULTS: Six hundred trial participants completed both tests. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement indicated that estimates of size by CT colonography were between 52% lower to 64% higher than prefixation polyp size estimates. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement stratified by categories of clinical importance indicated that estimates of size by CT colonography were between 44% lower to 84% higher for polyps 0.6 cm or smaller, 44% lower to 44% higher for polyps 0.6 to 0.9 cm, and 48% lower to 22% higher for polyps smaller than 0.6 cm, 44% lower to 44% higher for polyps 0.6 cm to 0.9 cm, and 48% lower to 22% higher for polyps larger than 0.9 cm compared with prefixation estimates. Analysis of participants with 1 identified polyp in the same colon segment showed that categorization based on CT colonography measurement (ie, <0.6 cm, 0.6-0.9 cm, or >0.9 cm) differed from prefixation measurement for 43% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Polyp size estimation by CT colonography varies from prefixation and colonoscopic measures of size. Future studies should clarify whether size estimation by CT colonography is sufficiently reliable as a primary factor to guide clinical management.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinical management of polyps discovered by computed tomographic (CT) colonography depends on polyp size. However, size measured by CT colonography is an estimate, and its agreement with other measures is not well characterized. We hypothesized that size measurement by CT colonography varies substantially compared with measurement by other methods. METHODS: We performed a secondary data analysis of a multicenter study of CT colonography in comparison with colonoscopy. Polyp size was determined by CT colonography, at colonoscopy, and measurement prefixation with a ruler. Agreement was assessed using descriptive statistics and Bland-Altman methodology. RESULTS: Six hundred trial participants completed both tests. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement indicated that estimates of size by CT colonography were between 52% lower to 64% higher than prefixation polyp size estimates. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement stratified by categories of clinical importance indicated that estimates of size by CT colonography were between 44% lower to 84% higher for polyps 0.6 cm or smaller, 44% lower to 44% higher for polyps 0.6 to 0.9 cm, and 48% lower to 22% higher for polyps smaller than 0.6 cm, 44% lower to 44% higher for polyps 0.6 cm to 0.9 cm, and 48% lower to 22% higher for polyps larger than 0.9 cm compared with prefixation estimates. Analysis of participants with 1 identified polyp in the same colon segment showed that categorization based on CT colonography measurement (ie, <0.6 cm, 0.6-0.9 cm, or >0.9 cm) differed from prefixation measurement for 43% of participants. CONCLUSIONS:Polyp size estimation by CT colonography varies from prefixation and colonoscopic measures of size. Future studies should clarify whether size estimation by CT colonography is sufficiently reliable as a primary factor to guide clinical management.
Authors: Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Robert H Fletcher; Jonathon S Stillman; Michael J O'Brien; Bernard Levin; Robert A Smith; David A Lieberman; Randall W Burt; Theodore R Levin; John H Bond; Durado Brooks; Tim Byers; Neil Hyman; Lynne Kirk; Alan Thorson; Clifford Simmang; David Johnson; Douglas K Rex Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 22.682
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
Authors: Peter B Cotton; Valerie L Durkalski; Benoit C Pineau; Yuko Y Palesch; Patrick D Mauldin; Brenda Hoffman; David J Vining; William C Small; John Affronti; Douglas Rex; Kenyon K Kopecky; Susan Ackerman; J Steven Burdick; Cecelia Brewington; Mary A Turner; Alvin Zfass; Andrew R Wright; Revathy B Iyer; Patrick Lynch; Michael V Sivak; Harold Butler Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-04-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hemant K Roy; Andrew Gomes; Vladimir Turzhitsky; Michael J Goldberg; Jeremy Rogers; Sarah Ruderman; Kim L Young; Alex Kromine; Randall E Brand; Mohammed Jameel; Parmede Vakil; Nahla Hasabou; Vadim Backman Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Matthew D Rutter; James East; Colin J Rees; Neil Cripps; James Docherty; Sunil Dolwani; Philip V Kaye; Kevin J Monahan; Marco R Novelli; Andrew Plumb; Brian P Saunders; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Damian J M Tolan; Sophie Whyte; Stewart Bonnington; Alison Scope; Ruth Wong; Barbara Hibbert; John Marsh; Billie Moores; Amanda Cross; Linda Sharp Journal: Gut Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 31.793
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
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