HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gluecker, T. Articles by Schnyder, P Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gluecker, T. Articles by Schnyder, P Topic Collections Relevant Article

Performance of multidetector computed tomography colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy

¹ Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital CHUV Lausanne, Switzerland, and Department of Radiodiagnostic, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota, USA
² Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital CHUV Lausanne, Switzerland
³ Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital CHUV Lausanne, Switzerland

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr P Schnyder, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, CHUV, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland;
Pierre.Schnyder{at}chuv.hospvd.ch

ABSTRACT
Background and aims: This was a prospective blinded study to compare computed tomography (CT) colonography, performed with multidetector arrays CT scan (MDCT), with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasia.

Methods: Fifty patients were examined by MDCT after standard bowel preparation and rectal air insufflation in the supine and prone positions. Data sets were examined by one radiologist and one gastroenterologist blinded to the patient's history and colonoscopy results. Patients subsequently underwent colonoscopy on the same day, which served as the gold standard.

Results: Nine of 11 lesions >10 mm (82%), 5/15 lesions of 6–9 mm (33%), and 1/42 polyps <5 mm (3%) were detected by MDCT colonography. One false positive result for a structure larger than 10 mm was described. Nineteen of 21 patients who had no lesions during conventional colonoscopy were considered free of lesions by MDCT colonography, yielding a per patient specificity of 90%.

Conclusion: MDCT colonography provides good data quality and has good sensitivity and specificity for the detection of colonic lesions of 10 mm or more.

Keywords: colonography; multidetector arrays; computed tomography; colonic neoplasia

Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MDCT, multidetector arrays computed tomography

Relevant Article

Digest

Ian Forgacs
Gut 2002 51: 143. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y. Minami, H. Chung, M. Kudo, S. Kitai, S. Takahashi, T. Inoue, K. Ueshima, and H. Shiozaki Radiofrequency Ablation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Value of Virtual CT Sonography with Magnetic Navigation Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2008; 190(6): W335 - W341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Sosna, T. Sella, O. Sy, P. T. Lavin, R. Eliahou, S. Fraifeld, and E. Libson Critical Analysis of the Performance of Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Detecting Colorectal Polyps >= 6 mm in the Era of CT Colonography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 374 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Halligan, D. G. Altman, S. A. Taylor, S. Mallett, J. J. Deeks, C. I. Bartram, and W. Atkin CT Colonography in the Detection of Colorectal Polyps and Cancer: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Proposed Minimum Data Set for Study Level Reporting Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 893 - 904. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. H. Park, H. K. Ha, M.-J. Kim, K. W. Kim, A. Y. Kim, D. H. Yang, M.-G. Lee, P. N. Kim, Y. M. Shin, S.-K. Yang, et al. False-Negative Results at Multi-Detector Row CT Colonography: Multivariate Analysis of Causes for Missed Lesions Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 495 - 502. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. P. Mulhall, G. R. Veerappan, and J. L. Jackson Meta-Analysis: Computed Tomographic Colonography Ann Intern Med, April 19, 2005; 142(8): 635 - 650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Cohnen, C. Vogt, A. Beck, K. Andersen, W. Heinen, S. vom Dahl, V. Aurich, D. Haeussinger, and U. Moedder Feasibility of MDCT Colonography in Ultra-Low-Dose Technique in the Detection of Colorectal Lesions: Comparison with High-Resolution Video Colonoscopy Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2004; 183(5): 1355 - 1359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. W. F. Geenen, S. M. Hussain, F. Cademartiri, J.-W. Poley, P. D. Siersema, and G. P. Krestin CT and MR Colonography: Scanning Techniques, Postprocessing, and Emphasis on Polyp Detection RadioGraphics, January 1, 2004; 24(1): e18 - e18. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				H Herfarth and A G Schreyer The virtuosity of virtuality or how real is virtual colonography Gut, December 1, 2003; 52(12): 1662 - 1664. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Sosna, M. M. Morrin, J. B. Kruskal, P. T. Lavin, M. P. Rosen, and V. Raptopoulos CT Colonography of Colorectal Polyps: A Metaanalysis Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2003; 181(6): 1593 - 1598. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters: