4.4 Article

The efficacy of intravenous contrast-enhanced 16-raw multidetector CT colonography for detecting patients with colorectal polyps in an asymptomatic population in Korea

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 42, 期 7, 页码 791-798

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31811edcb7

关键词

CT colonography; colorectal polyps; colonoscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the sensitivity of computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) with that of colonoscopy for detecting patients with colorectal polyps in an asymptomatic screening population in Korea, thus to evaluate a possibility, whether CTC could be used as a screening tool for colorectal polyps. Methods: A total of 241 asymptomatic adults underwent intravenous contrast-enhanced CTC and colonoscopy successively on the same day. Bowel preparation was performed by 4 L of polyethylene glycol (n = 172) or 90 mL of sodium phosphate (n 69). The CTC findings were released to the colonoscopists after the first examination of each segment, a procedure known as segmental unblinded colonoscopy, and were used as the reference standard. The diagnostic performance of CTC for colorectal polyps was calculated. Results: The per-patient sensitivities of CTC were 68.5% (37/54) and 86.7% (13/15) for polyp >= 6 and >= 10 mm, inferior to those of colonoscopy, 92.6% (50154) and 100% (15115), respectively. The per-polyp sensitivities of CTC were 60.4% (61/101) and 72.7% (16/22) for polyp >= 6 and >= 10 mm, respectively. The low sensitivity of CTC was related with flat morphology. CTC detected only 37.5% (9/24) of flat polyps >= 6 mm. Bowel preparation by sodium phosphate further decreased the positive predictive value and specificity than by polyethylene glycol. Conclusions: Screening by CTC with asymptomatic population was not promising in Korea despite using advanced CT technology (16-row detector). Bowel preparation was one of the key determinants of the specificity of CTC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据