AIM: To evaluate the effect of experience on the accuracy rate of computed tomography colonography (CTC) interpretation and patient preferences/satisfaction for CTC and colonoscopy. METHODS: A prospective, non-randomized, observational study performed in a single, tertiary care center involving 90 adults who underwent CTC followed by colonoscopy on the same day. CTC was interpreted by an abdominal imaging radiologist and then a colonoscopy was performed utilizing segmental un-blinding and re-examination as required. A radiology resident and two gastroenterology (GI) fellows blinded to the results also interpreted the CTC datasets independently. Accuracy rates and trend changes were determined for each reader to assess for a learning curve. RESULTS: Among 90 patients (57% male) aged 55 ± 8.9 years, 39 polyps ≥ 6 mm were detected in 20 patients and 13 polyps > 9 mm in 10 patients. Accuracy rates were 88.9% (≥ 6 mm) and 93.3% (> 9 mm) for the GI Radiologist, 89.8% (≥ 6 mm) and 98.9% (> 9 mm) for the Radiology Resident and 86.7% and 95.6% (≥ 6 mm) and 87.8% and 94.4% (> 9 mm) for each of the GI fellows respectively. The reader's accuracy rate did not change significantly with the percentage change rate ranging between -1.7 to 0.9 (P = 0.12 to 0.56). Patients considered colonoscopy more satisfactory than CTC (30% vs 4%, P < 0.0001), they felt less anxiety during colonoscopy (36% vs 7%, P < 0.0001), they experienced less pain or discomfort during colonoscopy compared to CTC (69% vs 4%, P < 0.0001) and colonoscopy was preferred by 77% of the participants as a repeat screening test for the future. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant learning curve was identified in CTC interpretation suggesting that further study is required to identify the necessary training to adequately interpret CTC scans.
AIM: To evaluate the effect of experience on the accuracy rate of computed tomography colonography (CTC) interpretation and patient preferences/satisfaction for CTC and colonoscopy. METHODS: A prospective, non-randomized, observational study performed in a single, tertiary care center involving 90 adults who underwent CTC followed by colonoscopy on the same day. CTC was interpreted by an abdominal imaging radiologist and then a colonoscopy was performed utilizing segmental un-blinding and re-examination as required. A radiology resident and two gastroenterology (GI) fellows blinded to the results also interpreted the CTC datasets independently. Accuracy rates and trend changes were determined for each reader to assess for a learning curve. RESULTS: Among 90 patients (57% male) aged 55 ± 8.9 years, 39 polyps ≥ 6 mm were detected in 20 patients and 13 polyps > 9 mm in 10 patients. Accuracy rates were 88.9% (≥ 6 mm) and 93.3% (> 9 mm) for the GI Radiologist, 89.8% (≥ 6 mm) and 98.9% (> 9 mm) for the Radiology Resident and 86.7% and 95.6% (≥ 6 mm) and 87.8% and 94.4% (> 9 mm) for each of the GI fellows respectively. The reader's accuracy rate did not change significantly with the percentage change rate ranging between -1.7 to 0.9 (P = 0.12 to 0.56). Patients considered colonoscopy more satisfactory than CTC (30% vs 4%, P < 0.0001), they felt less anxiety during colonoscopy (36% vs 7%, P < 0.0001), they experienced less pain or discomfort during colonoscopy compared to CTC (69% vs 4%, P < 0.0001) and colonoscopy was preferred by 77% of the participants as a repeat screening test for the future. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant learning curve was identified in CTC interpretation suggesting that further study is required to identify the necessary training to adequately interpret CTC scans.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colonoscopy; Colorectal cancer screening; Colorectal neoplasia; Computed tomography colonography
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Daniel Johnson; William S Harmsen; Lynn A Wilson; Robert L Maccarty; Timothy J Welch; Duane M Ilstrup; David A Ahlquist Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Debra J Holden; Daniel E Jonas; Deborah S Porterfield; Daniel Reuland; Russell Harris Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: D C Rockey; E Paulson; D Niedzwiecki; W Davis; H B Bosworth; L Sanders; J Yee; J Henderson; P Hatten; S Burdick; A Sanyal; D T Rubin; M Sterling; G Akerkar; M S Bhutani; K Binmoeller; J Garvie; E J Bini; K McQuaid; W L Foster; W M Thompson; A Dachman; R Halvorsen Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jan 22-28 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: Hyuk Sang Jung; Dong Kyun Park; Min Ju Kim; Sang Kyun Yu; Kwang An Kwon; Yang Suh Ku; Yu Kyung Kim; Ju Hyun Kim Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.165