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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |