Small and Diminutive Polyps Detected at Screening CT Colonography: A Decision Analysis for Referral to Colonoscopy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Gastroenterology, 2003
This study used a low lesion prevalence population reflective of the screening setting to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of computerized tomographic (CT) colonography for detection of colorectal polyps. Methods: This prospective, blinded study comprised 703 asymptomatic persons at higher-thanaverage risk for colorectal cancer who underwent CT colonography followed by same-day colonoscopy. Two of 3 experienced readers interpreted each CT colonography examination. Results: Overall lesion prevalence for adenomas >1 cm in diameter was 5%. Seventy percent of all lesions were proximal to the descending colon. With colonoscopy serving as the gold standard, CT colonography detected 34%, 32%, 73%, and 63% of the 59 polyps >1 cm for readers 1, 2, 3, and double-reading, respectively; and 35%, 29%, 57%, and 54% of the 94 polyps 5-9 mm for readers 1, 2, 3, and double-reading, respectively. Specificity for CT colonography ranged from 95% to 98% and 86% to 95% for >1 cm and 5-9-mm polyps, respectively. Interobserver variability was high for CT colonography with statistic values ranging from ؊0.67 to 0.89. Conclusions: In a low prevalence setting, polyp detection rates at CT colonography are well below those at colonoscopy. These rates are less than previous reports based largely on high lesion prevalence cohorts. High interobserver variability warrants further investigation but may be due to the low prevalence of polyps in this cohort and the high impact on total sensitivity of each missed polyp. Specificity, based on large numbers, is high and exhibits excellent agreement among observers.
European radiology, 2015
Surveillance CT colonography (CTC) is a viable option for 6-9 mm polyps at CTC screening for colorectal cancer. We established participation and diagnostic yield of surveillance and determined overall yield of CTC screening. In an invitational CTC screening trial 82 of 982 participants harboured 6-9 mm polyps as the largest lesion(s) for which surveillance CTC was advised. Only participants with one or more lesion(s) ≥6 mm at surveillance CTC were offered colonoscopy (OC); 13 had undergone preliminary OC. The surveillance CTC yield was defined as the number of participants with advanced neoplasia in the 82 surveillance participants, and was added to the primary screening yield. Sixty-five of 82 participants were eligible for surveillance CTC of which 56 (86.2 %) participated. Advanced neoplasia was diagnosed in 15/56 participants (26.8 %) and 9/13 (69.2 %) with preliminary OC. Total surveillance yield was 24/82 (29.3 %). No carcinomas were detected. Adding surveillance results to in...
Computed Tomographic Virtual Colonoscopy Computer-Aided Polyp Detection in a Screening Population
2005
The sensitivity of computed tomographic (CT) virtual colonoscopy (CT colonography) for detecting polyps varies widely in recently reported large clinical trials. Our objective was to determine whether a computer program is as sensitive as optical colonoscopy for the detection of adenomatous colonic polyps on CT virtual colonoscopy. Methods: The data set was a cohort of 1186 screening patients at 3 medical centers. All patients underwent same-day virtual and optical colonoscopy. Our enhanced gold standard combined segmental unblinded optical colonoscopy and retrospective identification of precise polyp locations. The data were randomized into separate training (n ؍ 394) and test (n ؍ 792) sets for analysis by a computer-aided polyp detection (CAD) program. Results: For the test set, per-polyp and per-patient sensitivities for CAD were both 89.3% (25/28; 95% confidence interval, 71.8%-97.7%) for detecting retrospectively identifiable adenomatous polyps at least 1 cm in size. The false-positive rate was 2.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.0 -2.2) false polyps per patient. Both carcinomas were detected by CAD at a falsepositive rate of 0.7 per patient; only 1 of 2 was detected by optical colonoscopy before segmental unblinding. At both 8-mm and 10-mm adenoma size thresholds, the per-patient sensitivities of CAD were not significantly different from those of optical colonoscopy before segmental unblinding. Conclusions: The per-patient sensitivity of CT virtual colonoscopy CAD in an asymptomatic screening population is comparable to that of optical colonoscopy for adenomas >8 mm and is generalizable to new CT virtual colonoscopy data.