AIM: Radiographers performed and reported 5516 double contrast barium enemas (RDCBEs) over 4 years to October 2001. This study was undertaken to assess the accuracy of RDCBE and the sensitivity for diagnosing colorectal cancer (CRC). METHOD: A total of 224 consecutive outpatient RDCBEs were reported; normal (C1), diverticulosis (C2), diverticulosis with filling defect (C3), diverticulosis & other pathology (C4) and abnormal (C5). RDCBEs were then reported by a radiologist (AL, NS) and the two reports compared. Of 450 CRCs, 153 had undergone DCBE; 152 RDCBEs. Reports were analysed to establish concurrence between radiographer and radiologist and final CRC diagnosis. RESULTS: By category: C1 - 37%, C2 - 31%, C3 - 21%, C4 - 11%, C5 - 0%. C4s included polyps (50%), cancer (12.5%), disrupted anastomosis (8%) and colitis (4%). There was no discrepancy between RDCBE and radiologist reports. Radiology and CRC diagnosis agreed in 145 of 152 DCBEs. There were three exclusions: DCBEs occurred outside the study period (2), one only with raised possibility of malignancy. Of eight remaining RDCBEs, seven were false negatives and one false positive. Sensitivity score for RDCBE was 94.5%. Double reporting by a radiologist did not improve sensitivity. CONCLUSION: RDCBEs are as accurate as those performed by radiologists and have a very high sensitivity for CRC. In a time of ever increasing demands for complex staging investigations for CRC and interventional radiology, the ACPGBI needs to reconsider its guidelines on radiographers not only performing but also reporting DCBE.
AIM: Radiographers performed and reported 5516 double contrast barium enemas (RDCBEs) over 4 years to October 2001. This study was undertaken to assess the accuracy of RDCBE and the sensitivity for diagnosing colorectal cancer (CRC). METHOD: A total of 224 consecutive outpatient RDCBEs were reported; normal (C1), diverticulosis (C2), diverticulosis with filling defect (C3), diverticulosis & other pathology (C4) and abnormal (C5). RDCBEs were then reported by a radiologist (AL, NS) and the two reports compared. Of 450 CRCs, 153 had undergone DCBE; 152 RDCBEs. Reports were analysed to establish concurrence between radiographer and radiologist and final CRC diagnosis. RESULTS: By category: C1 - 37%, C2 - 31%, C3 - 21%, C4 - 11%, C5 - 0%. C4s included polyps (50%), cancer (12.5%), disrupted anastomosis (8%) and colitis (4%). There was no discrepancy between RDCBE and radiologist reports. Radiology and CRC diagnosis agreed in 145 of 152 DCBEs. There were three exclusions: DCBEs occurred outside the study period (2), one only with raised possibility of malignancy. Of eight remaining RDCBEs, seven were false negatives and one false positive. Sensitivity score for RDCBE was 94.5%. Double reporting by a radiologist did not improve sensitivity. CONCLUSION: RDCBEs are as accurate as those performed by radiologists and have a very high sensitivity for CRC. In a time of ever increasing demands for complex staging investigations for CRC and interventional radiology, the ACPGBI needs to reconsider its guidelines on radiographers not only performing but also reporting DCBE.