Literature DB >> 24587633

Does training and experience influence the accuracy of computed tomography colonography interpretation?

Greg Rosenfeld1, Yi Tzu Nancy Fu1, Brendan Quiney1, Hong Qian1, Darin Krygier1, Jacquie Brown1, Patrick Vos1, Pari Tiwari1, Jennifer Telford1, Brian Bressler1, Robert Enns1.   

Abstract

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

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24587633      PMCID: PMC3925866          DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i6.1574

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1007-9327            Impact factor:   5.742


  29 in total

1.  Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates.

Authors:  H J Kim; M P Fay; E J Feuer; D N Midthune
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-02-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.

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

3.  Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps.

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

Review 4.  Computed tomographic colonography: current perspectives and future directions.

Authors:  Don C Rockey
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2009-05-18       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 5.  Systematic review: enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening.

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

6.  Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison.

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

7.  Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia.

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

8.  CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study.

Authors:  Rogier E van Gelder; Erwin Birnie; Jasper Florie; Michiel P Schutter; Joep F Bartelsman; Pleun Snel; Johan S Laméris; Gouke J Bonsel; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-09-09       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Factors influencing patient satisfaction when undergoing endoscopic procedures.

Authors:  Hin Hin Ko; Hongbin Zhang; Jennifer J Telford; Robert Enns
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-01-18       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  A comparison of patient acceptance and preferences between CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.