| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Original Research |
1 All authors: Mayo Clinic, Mayo Medical School, Mary Clinic E-2, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905.
OBJECTIVE. Our purpose was to determine the prevalence of polyps that are invisible on CT colonography (CTC) in a population previously screened for colorectal neoplasms. Differences in the prevalence of occult polyps in various populations might help explain the discordant reported sensitivities for polyp detection in published reports of CTC.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Seventy-five consecutive patients who had been previously screened for polyps underwent same-day colonoscopy and CTC. Many of the patients had personal histories of previous polypectomies and were undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. The scans were interpreted prospectively by an experienced radiologist. Polyps missed prospectively on CTC were analyzed retrospectively by three experienced radiologists and categorized as perception errors (visible in retrospect), technical errors (e.g., obscured by feces or fluid), or occult (invisible).
RESULTS. Thirty polyps 5 mm or larger were found at colonoscopy, 18 of which were missed prospectively on CTC. Of the 18 missed polyps, 12 could not be identified in retrospect, even though they were located in clean, dry, well-distended colonic segments. These were classified as occult. Ten of the 12 occult polyps showed flat morphology on review of colonoscopy video recordings. Of the remaining six missed polyps, two were classified as perception errors, two as technical errors, and two as a combination of technical and perception error.
CONCLUSION. In this population, colonographically occult polyps were common and accounted for more detection failures than perception errors and technical errors combined. The high prevalence of occult polyps may be explained by the fact that previous screening may have led to removal of easy-to-see polyps, creating a study population with a higher percentage of hard-to-see polyps.
Keywords: colonography • colorectal cancer • CT • polyps
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. J. Pickhardt and D. H. Kim Colorectal Cancer Screening With CT Colonography: Key Concepts Regarding Polyp Prevalence, Size, Histology, Morphology, and Natural History Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2009; 193(1): 40 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. H. Park, S. Y. Kim, S. S. Lee, L. Bogoni, A. Y. Kim, S.-K. Yang, S.-J. Myung, J.-S. Byeon, B. D. Ye, and H. K. Ha Sensitivity of CT Colonography for Nonpolypoid Colorectal Lesions Interpreted by Human Readers and With Computer-Aided Detection Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2009; 193(1): 70 - 78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Jensch, A. H. de Vries, J. Peringa, S. Bipat, E. Dekker, L. C. Baak, J. F. Bartelsman, A. Heutinck, A. D. Montauban van Swijndregt, and J. Stoker CT Colonography with Limited Bowel Preparation: Performance Characteristics in an Increased-Risk Population Radiology, April 1, 2008; 247(1): 122 - 132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. T. Johnson, J. G. Fletcher, and C. D. Johnson Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) Using 360{degrees} Virtual Dissection: Can CAD in a First Reviewer Paradigm Be a Reliable Substitute for Primary 2D or 3D Search? Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2007; 189(4): W172 - W176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
