Literature DB >> 2231773

Prospective study of the frequency and size distribution of polyps missed by colonoscopy.

L J Hixson1, M B Fennerty, R E Sampliner, D McGee, H Garewal.   

Abstract

An important determinant in interpreting the results of colorectal polyp chemoprevention trials is the rate of polyps missed during colonscopic examination. We prospectively examined 90 patients by tandem colonoscopy performed by two alternating examiners. In 69 (76.7%) patients, 221 neoplastic lesions were documented histologically. Of a total of 58 lesions detected in 31 patients, no neoplastic lesion greater than or equal to 10 mm in size was missed; 16% of diminutive (less than or equal to 5 mm) neoplastic polyps and 12.3% of medium-sized (6-9 mm) neoplastic polyps were missed by the first examiner. We conclude that an experienced colonoscopist will miss about 15% of colorectal neoplastic polyps less than 10 mm in size in the setting of adequate bowel preparation. Large (greater than or equal to 10 mm) polyps were rarely missed, however, with the "miss" rate in our study equal to 0, with a 95% confidence limit of 4.64%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2231773     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/82.22.1769

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  71 in total

Review 1.  The diagnostic and therapeutic roles of colonoscopy: a review.

Authors:  E H Huang; J M Marks
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps.

Authors:  W S Atkin; B P Saunders
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  New endoscopy devices to improve population adherence to colorectal cancer prevention programs.

Authors:  Asimina Gaglia; Ioannis S Papanikolaou; Wilfried Veltzke-Schlieker
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2010-07-16

4.  An evidence-based microsimulation model for colorectal cancer: validation and application.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; James E Savarino
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-07-20       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Steven J Heitman; Braden J Manns; Robert J Hilsden; Andrew Fong; Stafford Dean; Joseph Romagnuolo
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 6.  Colonoscopy vs CT colonography to screen for colorectal neoplasia in average-risk patients.

Authors:  J M Hardacre; J L Ponsky; M E Baker
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  A hierarchical non-homogenous Poisson model for meta-analysis of adenoma counts.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Onchee Yu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Correlation of Ki-67, p53, and Adnab-9 immunohistochemical staining and ploidy with clinical and histopathologic features of severely dysplastic colorectal adenomas.

Authors:  Rafiq A Sheikh; Byung Hee Min; Shagufta Yasmeen; Raymond Teplitz; Henry Tesluk; Boris Henry Ruebner; Martin Tobi; James Hatfield; Suzanne Fligiel; Michael J Lawson
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Colon cancer screening update and management of the malignant polyp.

Authors:  James M Church
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2005-08

10.  Risk related surveillance following colorectal polypectomy.

Authors:  G Nusko; U Mansmann; Th Kirchner; E G Hahn
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 23.059

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.