| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Department of Radiology, 3D and Image Processing Center, Brigham and Women's
Hospital, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA 02115.
2 Department of Radiology, Boston Medical Center, 88 E Newton St., Boston, MA
02118.
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to determine the current opinions regarding the performance, interpretation, reporting, and clinical role of virtual colonoscopy among a group of selected experts to develop a consensus statement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. A questionnaire was sent to 33 selected experts in virtual colonoscopy. Responses were tabulated and results were used to develop a consensus statement. The results of the questionnaire and consensus statement were sent to respondents for comment and approval.
RESULTS. Thirty-one (93.9%) of 33 surveys were returned. Eighty-seven percent (27/31) of respondents believe virtual colonoscopy is a credible screening method. Oral sodium phosphate solution is the laxative preferred by more than 66% (18/27), whereas 62% (13/21) do not believe fecal tagging is necessary. All respondents (25/25) think that both prone and supine imaging is required, with most (81%, 21/26) believing IV contrast material is not necessary. The routine use of spasmolytics is suggested by only 15% (4/26). The largest acceptable slice thickness of 3 mm is agreed on by 88% (22/25). All respondents believe screening virtual colonoscopy should be performed at a lower dose per slice than conventional CT. Most (80%, 20/25) believe the optimum method of interpreting virtual colonoscopy should be primary axial review, with 3D used for problem solving. All but one respondent (96%, 26/27) agree there is a threshold size below which polyps are not clinically important. When reporting virtual colonoscopy results, 59% (16/27) believe polyps less than 4 mm need not be reported.
CONCLUSION. A consensus is developing among experts as to the appropriate manner in which virtual colonoscopy should be performed, interpreted, and reported.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. H. Dachman, K. B. Kelly, M. P. Zintsmaster, R. Rana, S. Khankari, J. D. Novak, A. N. Ali, A. Qalbani, and J. G. Fletcher Formative Evaluation of Standardized Training for CT Colonographic Image Interpretation by Novice Readers Radiology, October 1, 2008; 249(1): 167 - 177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. H. Kim, J. M. Lee, C.-I. Shin, H. C. Kim, J.-G. Lee, J. H. Kim, J. Y. Choi, H. W. Eun, J. K. Han, J. Y. Lee, et al. Effects of Spatial Resolution and Tube Current on Computer-aided Detection of Polyps on CT Colonographic Images: Phantom Study Radiology, August 1, 2008; 248(2): 492 - 503. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. T. Johnson, J. Eng, H. K. Pannu, and E. K. Fishman 64-MDCT Angiography of the Coronary Arteries: Nationwide Survey of Patient Preparation Practice Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2008; 190(3): 743 - 747. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. J. Pickhardt, A. D. Lee, A. J. Taylor, S. J. Michel, T. C. Winter, A. Shadid, R. J. Meiners, P. J. Chase, J. L. Hinshaw, J. G. Williams, et al. Primary 2D Versus Primary 3D Polyp Detection at Screening CT Colonography Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2007; 189(6): 1451 - 1456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. H. Kim, J. M. Lee, H. W. Eun, M. W. Lee, J. K. Han, J. Y. Lee, and B. I. Choi Two- versus Three-dimensional Colon Evaluation with Recently Developed Virtual Dissection Software for CT Colonography Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 852 - 864. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. S. Lee, S. H. Park, E. K. Choi, S. Y. Kim, M.-J. Kim, K. H. Lee, and Y. H. Kim Colorectal Polyps on Portal Phase Contrast-Enhanced CT Colonography: Lesion Attenuation and Distinction from Tagged Feces Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2007; 189(1): 35 - 40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. S. WERDERMAN CT Colonography Radiol. Technol., March 1, 2007; 78(4): 309CT - 324CT. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Mang, A. Maier, C. Plank, C. Mueller-Mang, C. Herold, and W. Schima Pitfalls in Multi-Detector Row CT Colonography: A Systematic Approach RadioGraphics, March 1, 2007; 27(2): 431 - 454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. C. Silva, C. V. Wellnitz, and A. K. Hara Three-dimensional Virtual Dissection at CT Colonography: Unraveling the Colon to Search for Lesions RadioGraphics, November 1, 2006; 26(6): 1669 - 1686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. C. Silva, E. A. Vens, A. K. Hara, J. G. Fletcher, J. L. Fidler, and C. D. Johnson Evaluation of Benign and Malignant Rectal Lesions with CT Colonography and Endoscopic Correlation. RadioGraphics, July 1, 2006; 26(4): 1085 - 1099. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
