Literature DB >> 18292475

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population.

Sebastiaan Jensch1, Ayso H de Vries, Jan Peringa, Shandra Bipat, Evelien Dekker, Lubbertus C Baak, Joep F Bartelsman, Anneke Heutinck, Alexander D Montauban van Swijndregt, Jaap Stoker.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) colonography with limited bowel preparation for the depiction of colonic polyps, by using colonoscopy as the reference standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained. Patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer underwent CT colonography after fecal tagging, which consisted of 80 mL of barium sulfate and 180 mL of diatrizoate meglumine. Bisacodyl was added for stool softening. A radiologist and a research fellow evaluated all data independently by using a primary two-dimensional approach. Discrepant findings for lesions 6 mm or larger in diameter were solved with consensus. Segmental unblinding was performed. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity, per-polyp sensitivity, and number of false-positive findings were found (for lesions > or = 6 mm and > or = 10 mm in diameter). Per-patient sensitivities (blinded colonoscopy vs CT colonography) were tested for significance with McNemar statistics. Interobserver variability was analyzed per segment (prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa values [kappa(p)]).
RESULTS: One hundred fourteen of 168 patients (105 men, 63 women; mean age, 56 years) had polyps, with 56 polyps 6 mm or larger and 17 polyps 10 mm or larger. Per-patient sensitivities were not significantly different for CT colonography (consensus reading) and colonoscopy (P > or = .070). Sensitivity of CT colonography for patients with lesions 6 mm or larger and 10 mm or larger was 76% and 82%, respectively, and specificity of CT colonography was 79% and 97%, respectively. Blinded colonoscopy depicted 91% (lesions > or = 6 mm) and 88% (lesions > or = 10 mm) of disease in patients. Per-polyp sensitivity for CT colonography was 70% (lesions > or = 6 mm) and 82% (lesions > or = 10 mm). Number of false-positive findings was 42 (lesions > or = 6 mm) and six (lesions > or = 10 mm). kappa(p) Was 0.88 (lesions > or = 6 mm) and 0.96 (lesions > or = 10 mm).
CONCLUSION: CT colonography with limited bowel preparation has a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 97% for patients with polyps 10 mm or larger.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18292475     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2471070439

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


  17 in total

1.  National CT colonography trial (ACRIN 6664): comparison of three full-laxative bowel preparations in more than 2500 average-risk patients.

Authors:  Amy K Hara; Mark D Kuo; Meridith Blevins; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Judy Yee; Abraham Dachman; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; C Daniel Johnson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Reliability of change in lumbar MRI findings over time in patients with and without disc prosthesis--comparing two different image evaluation methods.

Authors:  Linda Berg; Oivind Gjertsen; Christian Hellum; Gesche Neckelmann; Lars G Johnsen; Geir E Eide; Ansgar Espeland
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  The elephant in the room: bowel preparation for CT colonography.

Authors:  Ronald Summers
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  CT Colonography to exclude colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients.

Authors:  Sarit Badiani; Silvia Tomas Hernandez; Sharad Karandikar; Shuvro Roy-Choudhury
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-05-22       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Bowel preparation in CT colonography: Is diet restriction necessary? A randomised trial (DIETSAN).

Authors:  Davide Bellini; Domenico De Santis; Damiano Caruso; Marco Rengo; Riccardo Ferrari; Tommaso Biondi; Andrea Laghi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Pilot study on efficacy of reduced cathartic bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl.

Authors:  Zhi-Yuan Chen; He-Song Shen; Ming-Yue Luo; Chai-Jie Duan; Wen-Li Cai; Hong-Bing Lu; Guo-Peng Zhang; Yang Liu; Jerome Z Liang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?

Authors:  Ayso H de Vries; Sebastiaan Jensch; Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Jasper Florie; Chung Y Nio; Roel Truyen; Shandra Bipat; Evelien Dekker; Paul Fockens; Lubbertus C Baak; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-11-04       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Margriet C de Haan; Esther M Stoop; Marije Deutekom; Paul Fockens; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Maarten Thomeer; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Monique E van Leerdam; Ernst J Kuipers; Evelien Dekker; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers?

Authors:  Ayso H de Vries; Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Shandra Bipat; Roel Truyen; Iwo W O Serlie; Rutger H Cohen; Saskia G C van Elderen; Anneke Heutinck; Oskar Kesselring; Wouter de Monyé; Lambertus te Strake; Tjeerd Wiersma; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-03-20       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation.

Authors:  Sebastiaan Jensch; Shandra Bipat; Jan Peringa; Ayso H de Vries; Anneke Heutinck; Evelien Dekker; Lubbertus C Baak; Alexander D Montauban van Swijndregt; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.