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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2009-07, Vol.19 (7), p.1723-1730 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1730 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 1723 |
| container_title | European radiology |
| container_volume | 19 |
| creator | 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 |
| 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-009-1328-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2691532</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67320304</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-7a132b9a9a863b6cb895605fa3dfc2168daefc5976805e36f1821e1187e2c6963</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1P3DAQhq0KVJZtf0AvVcSht8D4I47dA1K1KhQJiQucLceZ7AZl7dTOQvff49WuSovEaaSZZ975eAn5QuGcAtQXCYBzKAF0STlTJf9AZlRwVlJQ4ojMQHNV1lqLE3Ka0iNkkIr6IzmhmjHBGMzI9eK-cGEIPiyjHVfbYgzDdizWdnKr3i-_F23fdRjRO0xFg9Mzoi_wz4ix3-XaIqJtMaZP5LizQ8LPhzgnD1c_7xe_ytu765vFj9vSCVlPZW3zoo222irJG-kapSsJVWd52zlGpWotdq7StVRQIZcdVYwipapG5qSWfE4u97rjpllj69BP0Q5mjP3axq0Jtjf_V3y_MsvwZJjUtOIsC3w7CMTwe4NpMus-ORwG6zFskpE1Z8BBZPDsDfgYNtHn4wyjSimhxQ6ie8jFkFLE7u8mFMzOI7P3yOTXm51Hhueer_-e8NpxMCUDbA-kXPJLjK-T31d9AbStnOg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218884944</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>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</creator><creatorcontrib>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</creatorcontrib><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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1328-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19224220</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Colonic Polyps - pathology ; Colonic Polyps - radiotherapy ; Colonography, Computed Tomographic - methods ; Colonoscopy ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Europe ; Gastrointestinal ; Humans ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Neuroradiology ; Observer Variation ; Radiology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasound ; United States</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2009-07, Vol.19 (7), p.1723-1730</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2009</rights><rights>European Society of Radiology 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-7a132b9a9a863b6cb895605fa3dfc2168daefc5976805e36f1821e1187e2c6963</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-7a132b9a9a863b6cb895605fa3dfc2168daefc5976805e36f1821e1187e2c6963</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-009-1328-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-009-1328-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19224220$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Liedenbaum, Marjolein H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vries, Ayso H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halligan, Steve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bossuyt, Patrick M. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dachman, Abraham H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dekker, Evelien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Florie, Jasper</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gryspeerdt, Stefaan S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensch, Sebastiaan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, C. Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laghi, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, Stuart A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stoker, Jaap</creatorcontrib><title>CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><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.</description><subject>Colonic Polyps - pathology</subject><subject>Colonic Polyps - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Colonography, Computed Tomographic - methods</subject><subject>Colonoscopy</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Europe</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1P3DAQhq0KVJZtf0AvVcSht8D4I47dA1K1KhQJiQucLceZ7AZl7dTOQvff49WuSovEaaSZZ975eAn5QuGcAtQXCYBzKAF0STlTJf9AZlRwVlJQ4ojMQHNV1lqLE3Ka0iNkkIr6IzmhmjHBGMzI9eK-cGEIPiyjHVfbYgzDdizWdnKr3i-_F23fdRjRO0xFg9Mzoi_wz4ix3-XaIqJtMaZP5LizQ8LPhzgnD1c_7xe_ytu765vFj9vSCVlPZW3zoo222irJG-kapSsJVWd52zlGpWotdq7StVRQIZcdVYwipapG5qSWfE4u97rjpllj69BP0Q5mjP3axq0Jtjf_V3y_MsvwZJjUtOIsC3w7CMTwe4NpMus-ORwG6zFskpE1Z8BBZPDsDfgYNtHn4wyjSimhxQ6ie8jFkFLE7u8mFMzOI7P3yOTXm51Hhueer_-e8NpxMCUDbA-kXPJLjK-T31d9AbStnOg</recordid><startdate>20090701</startdate><enddate>20090701</enddate><creator>Liedenbaum, Marjolein H.</creator><creator>de Vries, Ayso H.</creator><creator>Halligan, Steve</creator><creator>Bossuyt, Patrick M. M.</creator><creator>Dachman, Abraham H.</creator><creator>Dekker, Evelien</creator><creator>Florie, Jasper</creator><creator>Gryspeerdt, Stefaan S.</creator><creator>Jensch, Sebastiaan</creator><creator>Johnson, C. Daniel</creator><creator>Laghi, Andrea</creator><creator>Taylor, Stuart A.</creator><creator>Stoker, Jaap</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090701</creationdate><title>CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers</title><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></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-7a132b9a9a863b6cb895605fa3dfc2168daefc5976805e36f1821e1187e2c6963</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Colonic Polyps - pathology</topic><topic>Colonic Polyps - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Colonography, Computed Tomographic - methods</topic><topic>Colonoscopy</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Europe</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Liedenbaum, Marjolein H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vries, Ayso H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halligan, Steve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bossuyt, Patrick M. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dachman, Abraham H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dekker, Evelien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Florie, Jasper</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gryspeerdt, Stefaan S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensch, Sebastiaan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, C. Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laghi, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, Stuart A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stoker, Jaap</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Liedenbaum, Marjolein H.</au><au>de Vries, Ayso H.</au><au>Halligan, Steve</au><au>Bossuyt, Patrick M. M.</au><au>Dachman, Abraham H.</au><au>Dekker, Evelien</au><au>Florie, Jasper</au><au>Gryspeerdt, Stefaan S.</au><au>Jensch, Sebastiaan</au><au>Johnson, C. Daniel</au><au>Laghi, Andrea</au><au>Taylor, Stuart A.</au><au>Stoker, Jaap</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2009-07-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1723</spage><epage>1730</epage><pages>1723-1730</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>19224220</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-009-1328-3</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0938-7994 |
| ispartof | European radiology, 2009-07, Vol.19 (7), p.1723-1730 |
| issn | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2691532 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Colonic Polyps - pathology Colonic Polyps - radiotherapy Colonography, Computed Tomographic - methods Colonoscopy Diagnostic Radiology Europe Gastrointestinal Humans Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neuroradiology Observer Variation Radiology Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Ultrasound United States |
| title | CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T19%3A54%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=CT%20colonography%20polyp%20matching:%20differences%20between%20experienced%20readers&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Liedenbaum,%20Marjolein%20H.&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1723&rft.epage=1730&rft.pages=1723-1730&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-009-1328-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E67320304%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218884944&rft_id=info:pmid/19224220&rfr_iscdi=true |