Cargando…

CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers

The purpose of this study was to investigate if experienced readers differ when matching polyps shown by both CT colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) and to explore the reasons for discrepancy. Twenty-eight CTC cases with corresponding OC were presented to eight experienced CTC readers. C...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liedenbaum, Marjolein H., de Vries, Ayso H., Halligan, Steve, Bossuyt, Patrick M. M., Dachman, Abraham H., Dekker, Evelien, Florie, Jasper, Gryspeerdt, Stefaan S., Jensch, Sebastiaan, Johnson, C. Daniel, Laghi, Andrea, Taylor, Stuart A., Stoker, Jaap
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2691532/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19224220
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1328-3
_version_ 1782167882232233984
author Liedenbaum, Marjolein H.
de Vries, Ayso H.
Halligan, Steve
Bossuyt, Patrick M. M.
Dachman, Abraham H.
Dekker, Evelien
Florie, Jasper
Gryspeerdt, Stefaan S.
Jensch, Sebastiaan
Johnson, C. Daniel
Laghi, Andrea
Taylor, Stuart A.
Stoker, Jaap
author_facet Liedenbaum, Marjolein H.
de Vries, Ayso H.
Halligan, Steve
Bossuyt, Patrick M. M.
Dachman, Abraham H.
Dekker, Evelien
Florie, Jasper
Gryspeerdt, Stefaan S.
Jensch, Sebastiaan
Johnson, C. Daniel
Laghi, Andrea
Taylor, Stuart A.
Stoker, Jaap
author_sort Liedenbaum, Marjolein H.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to investigate if experienced readers differ when matching polyps shown by both CT colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) and to explore the reasons for discrepancy. Twenty-eight CTC cases with corresponding OC were presented to eight experienced CTC readers. Cases represented a broad spectrum of findings, not completely fulfilling typical matching criteria. In 21 cases there was a single polyp on CTC and OC; in seven there were multiple polyps. Agreement between readers for matching was analyzed. For the 21 single-polyp cases, the number of correct matches per reader varied from 13 to 19. Almost complete agreement between readers was observed in 15 cases (71%), but substantial discrepancy was found for the remaining six (29%) probably due to large perceived differences in polyp size between CT and OC. Readers were able to match between 27 (71%) and 35 (92%) of the 38 CTC detected polyps in the seven cases with multiple polyps. Experienced CTC readers agree to a considerable extent when matching polyps between CTC and subsequent OC, but non-negligible disagreement exists.
format Text
id pubmed-2691532
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26915322009-06-05 CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers Liedenbaum, Marjolein H. de Vries, Ayso H. Halligan, Steve Bossuyt, Patrick M. M. Dachman, Abraham H. Dekker, Evelien Florie, Jasper Gryspeerdt, Stefaan S. Jensch, Sebastiaan Johnson, C. Daniel Laghi, Andrea Taylor, Stuart A. Stoker, Jaap Eur Radiol Gastrointestinal The purpose of this study was to investigate if experienced readers differ when matching polyps shown by both CT colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) and to explore the reasons for discrepancy. Twenty-eight CTC cases with corresponding OC were presented to eight experienced CTC readers. Cases represented a broad spectrum of findings, not completely fulfilling typical matching criteria. In 21 cases there was a single polyp on CTC and OC; in seven there were multiple polyps. Agreement between readers for matching was analyzed. For the 21 single-polyp cases, the number of correct matches per reader varied from 13 to 19. Almost complete agreement between readers was observed in 15 cases (71%), but substantial discrepancy was found for the remaining six (29%) probably due to large perceived differences in polyp size between CT and OC. Readers were able to match between 27 (71%) and 35 (92%) of the 38 CTC detected polyps in the seven cases with multiple polyps. Experienced CTC readers agree to a considerable extent when matching polyps between CTC and subsequent OC, but non-negligible disagreement exists. Springer-Verlag 2009-02-18 2009-07 /pmc/articles/PMC2691532/ /pubmed/19224220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1328-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2009
spellingShingle Gastrointestinal
Liedenbaum, Marjolein H.
de Vries, Ayso H.
Halligan, Steve
Bossuyt, Patrick M. M.
Dachman, Abraham H.
Dekker, Evelien
Florie, Jasper
Gryspeerdt, Stefaan S.
Jensch, Sebastiaan
Johnson, C. Daniel
Laghi, Andrea
Taylor, Stuart A.
Stoker, Jaap
CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers
title CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers
title_full CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers
title_fullStr CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers
title_full_unstemmed CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers
title_short CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers
title_sort ct colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers
topic Gastrointestinal
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2691532/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19224220
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1328-3
work_keys_str_mv AT liedenbaummarjoleinh ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders
AT devriesaysoh ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders
AT halligansteve ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders
AT bossuytpatrickmm ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders
AT dachmanabrahamh ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders
AT dekkerevelien ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders
AT floriejasper ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders
AT gryspeerdtstefaans ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders
AT jenschsebastiaan ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders
AT johnsoncdaniel ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders
AT laghiandrea ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders
AT taylorstuarta ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders
AT stokerjaap ctcolonographypolypmatchingdifferencesbetweenexperiencedreaders