Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison

The usefulness of currently available colon imaging tests, including air contrast barium enema (ACBE), computed tomographic colonography (CTC), and colonoscopy, to detect colon polyps and cancers is uncertain. We aimed to assess the sensitivity of these three imaging tests. Patients with faecal occu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Lancet (British edition) 2005-01, Vol.365 (9456), p.305-311
Hauptverfasser: Rockey, DC, Paulson, E, Niedzwiecki, D, Davis, W, Bosworth, HB, Sanders, L, Yee, J, Henderson, J, Hatten, P, Burdick, S, Sanyal, A, Rubin, DT, Sterling, M, Akerkar, G, Bhutani, MS, Binmoeller, K, Garvie, J, Bini, EJ, McQuaid, K, Foster, WL, Thompson, WM, Dachman, A, Halvorsen, R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The usefulness of currently available colon imaging tests, including air contrast barium enema (ACBE), computed tomographic colonography (CTC), and colonoscopy, to detect colon polyps and cancers is uncertain. We aimed to assess the sensitivity of these three imaging tests. Patients with faecal occult blood, haematochezia, iron-deficiency anaemia, or a family history of colon cancer underwent three separate colon-imaging studies—ACBE, followed 7–14 days later by CTC and colonoscopy on the same day. The primary outcome was detection of colonic polyps and cancers. Outcomes were assessed by building an aggregate view of the colon, taking into account results of all three tests. 614 patients completed all three imaging tests. When analysed on a per-patient basis, for lesions 10 mm or larger in size (n=63), the sensitivity of ACBE was 48% (95% CI 35–61), CTC 59% (46–71, p=0·1083 for CTC vs ACBE), and colonoscopy 98% (91–100, p
ISSN:0140-6736
1474-547X
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17784-8