CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: Performance characteristics in an increased-risk population

Radiology

Volumn 247, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 122-132

  Jensch, Sebastiaan ^a,c   De Vries, Ayso H ^a   Peringa, Jan ^c   Bipat, Shandra ^a   Dekker, Evelien ^b   Baak, Lubbertus C ^c   Bartelsman, Joep F ^b   Heutinck, Anneke ^a   Montauban Van Swijndregt, Alexander D ^c   Stoker, Jaap ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c Department of Radiology Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BARIUM SULFATE; BISACODYL; GLUCAGON; MEGLUMINE DIATRIZOATE; SCOPOLAMINE BUTYL BROMIDE; SPASMOLYTIC AGENT; CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; LAXATIVE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COLON POLYP; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTESTINE PREPARATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; FECES; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RADIOGRAPHY;

BARIUM SULFATE; BISACODYL; CATHARTICS; COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; COLONOSCOPY; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIATRIZOATE MEGLUMINE; FECES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 42449091502     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2471070439     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC, et al. A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 1999;341(20):1496-1503. [Published correction appears in N Engl J Med 2000;342(7):524.]
2. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003;349(23):2191-2200.
3. Pineau BC, Paskett ED, Chen GJ, et al. Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003;125(2):304-310.
4. Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA, et al. Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003;125(2):311-319.
5. Van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J, et al. Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2004;127(1):41-48.
6. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ 3rd. A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97(12):3186-3194.
7. van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J, et al. CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 2004;233(2):328-337.
8. Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98(3):578-585.
9. Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C, Kohlberg G, Hahn PF. Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 2006;239(1):149-159. [Published correction appears in Radiology 2006;240 (1):304.]
10. Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, et al. CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology 2001;219(3):693-698.
11. Weitzman ER, Zapka J, Estabrook B, Goins KV. Risk and reluctance: understanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med 2001;32(6):502-513.
12. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, et al. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preference. Radiology 2003;227(2):378-384.
13. Rex DK. Current colorectal cancer screening strategies overview and obstacles to implementation. Rev Gastroenterol Disord 2002;2(suppl 1):S2-S11.
14. Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J, et al. CT colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184(6):1836-1842.
15. Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J, et al. Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results-polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology 2002;224(2):393-403.
16. McFarland EG, Zalis ME. CT colonography: progress toward colorectal evaluation without catharsis. Gastroenterology 2004;127(5):1623-1626.
17. Thomeer M, Carbone I, Bosmans H, et al. Stool tagging applied in thin-slice multidetector computed tomography colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003;27(2):132-139.
18. Bielen D, Thomeer M, Vanbeckevoort D, et al. Dry preparation for virtual CT colonography with fecal tagging using water-soluble contrast medium: initial results. Eur Radiol 2003;13(3):453-458.
19. Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al. Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2004;127(5):1300-1311.
20. MacCarty RL, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, Wilson LA. Occult colorectal polyps on CT colonography: implications for surveillance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(5):1380-1383.
21. Pepe MS. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction: Oxford statistical science series 28. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003; 35-65.
22. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin J. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46(5):423-429.
23. Petersen HH, Enøe C, Nielsen EO. Observer agreement on pen level prevalence of clinical signs in finishing pigs. Prev Vet Med 2004;64(2-4):147-156.
24. Zalis ME, Hahn PF. Digital subtraction bowel cleansing in CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176(3):646-648.
25. Summers RM, Jerebko AK, Franaszek M, et al. Colonic polyps: complementary role of computer-aided detection in CT colonography. Radiology 2002;225(2):391-399.
26. Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S, et al. Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology 2006;131(6):1690-1699.
27. Bodily KD, Fletcher JG, Engelby T, et al. Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography. Acad Radiol 2005;12(1):67-73.
28. Jensch S, Van Gelder RE, Florie J, et al. Performance of radiographers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(3):W249-W255.
29. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, et al. CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol 2004;14(6):1025-1033.
30. Lui YW, Macari M, Israel G, Bini EJ, Wang H, Babb J. CT colonography data interpretation: effect of different section thicknesses - preliminary observations. Radiology 2003;229(3):791-797.
31. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Bartram CI, et al. Multi-detector row CT colonography: effect of collimation, pitch, and orientation on polyp detection in a human colectomy specimen. Radiology 2003;229(1):109-118.
32. Jensch S, van Gelder RE, Venema HW, et al. Effective radiation doses in CT colonography: results of an inventory among research institutions. Eur Radiol 2006;16(5):981-987.