Literature DB >> 9434215

Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate?

N Gopalswamy1, V N Shenoy, U Choudhry, R J Markert, N Peace, M S Bhutani, C J Barde.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of polyp size during colonoscopy is important because of the direct correlation of size with colon cancer. Major studies of colorectal neoplasms have measured polyp size differently. It is also well documented that endoscopists underestimate polyp size frequently. The goal of this prospective study was to determine which one of the five methods of estimating polyp size during colonoscopy is most accurate.
METHODS: One hundred colon polyps were measured by means of visual estimation, open biopsy forceps methods, linear probe, a ruler immediately after excision, and after fixation in formalin. The size of the polyps measured outside the body immediately after excision was considered the "gold standard" against which all measurements were compared.
RESULTS: Forty-seven polyps were 5 mm or less in diameter, 33 polyps were 5.01 mm to 10 mm, and 20 polyps were more than 10 mm in size. For all polyps the mean difference versus the actual size of the polyps was 3.4% for linear probe, 6.4% for visual estimation, and 12.3% for the forceps.
CONCLUSION: Measurement of polyp size by linear probe agreed best with the actual polyp size, followed closely by visual estimation. The open biopsy forceps method was the least accurate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9434215     DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(97)70003-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  45 in total

Review 1.  Polyp size measurement at CT colonography: what do we know and what do we need to know?

Authors:  Ronald M Summers
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Polyp measurement and size categorisation by CT colonography: effect of observer experience in a multi-centre setting.

Authors:  David Burling; Steve Halligan; Douglas G Altman; Wendy Atkin; Clive Bartram; Helen Fenlon; Andrea Laghi; Jaap Stoker; Stuart Taylor; Roger Frost; Guido Dessey; Melinda De Villiers; Jasper Florie; Shane Foley; Lesley Honeyfield; Riccardo Iannaccone; Teresa Gallo; Clive Kay; Philippe Lefere; Andrew Lowe; Filipo Mangiapane; Jesse Marrannes; Emmanuele Neri; Giulia Nieddu; David Nicholson; Alan O'Hare; Sante Ori; Benedetta Politi; Martin Poulus; Daniele Regge; Lisa Renaut; Velauthan Rudralingham; Saverio Signoretta; Paola Vagli; Victor Van der Hulst; Jane Williams-Butt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-04-25       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Measurement of colonic polyps by radiologists and endoscopists: who is most accurate?

Authors:  S Punwani; S Halligan; P Irving; S Bloom; A Bungay; R Greenhalgh; J Godbold; S A Taylor; D G Altman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-01-04       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Endoscopic imaging and size estimation of colorectal adenomas in the multiple intestinal neoplasia mouse.

Authors:  Harvey H Hensley; Carrie E Merkel; Wen-Chi L Chang; Karthik Devarajan; Harry S Cooper; Margie L Clapper
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Characterization of the pathologic and endoscopic measurements of colorectal polyp sizes with a focus on sessile serrated adenoma and high-grade dysplasia.

Authors:  Fan Li; Zheng Chen; Yu Yang; Xianghua Yi; Yunsheng Yang; Lanjing Zhang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2014-03-15

6.  Endoscopic estimation of tumor size in early gastric cancer.

Authors:  Jeongmin Choi; Sang Gyun Kim; Jong Pil Im; Joo Sung Kim; Hyun Chae Jung
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 3.199

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.  Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences.

Authors:  Ayso H de Vries; Shandra Bipat; Evelien Dekker; Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Jasper Florie; Paul Fockens; Roel van der Kraan; Elizabeth M Mathus-Vliegen; Johannes B Reitsma; Roel Truyen; Frans M Vos; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  M H Liedenbaum; A F van Rijn; A H de Vries; H M Dekker; M Thomeer; C J van Marrewijk; L Hol; M G W Dijkgraaf; P Fockens; P M M Bossuyt; E Dekker; J Stoker
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.