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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Lancet (British edition) 2005-01, Vol.365 (9456), p.305-311 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
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 |