4.7 Article

CT colonography without cathartic preparation: positive predictive value and patient experience in clinical practice

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 1195-1204

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2367-0

关键词

CT-colonography; Faecal tagging; Patient acceptance; Colorectal cancer; Bowel preparation colorectal polyp; Adenoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine the positive predictive value (PPV) for polyps >= 6 mm detected at CT colonography (CTC) performed without cathartic preparation, with low-dose iodine faecal tagging regimen and to evaluate patient experience. Methods 1920 average-risk patients underwent CTC without cathartic preparation. Faecal tagging was performed by diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium at a total dose of 60 ml (22.2 g of iodine).The standard interpretation method was primary 3D with 2D problem solving. We calculated per-patient and per-polyp PPV in relation to size and morphology. All colonic segments were evaluated for image quality (faecal tagging, amount of liquid and solid residual faeces and luminal distension). Patients completed a questionnaire before and after CTC to assess preparation and examination experience. Results Per-polyp PPV for detected lesions of >= 6 mm, 6-9 mm, >= 10 mm and >= 30 mm were 94.3%, 93.1%, 94.7% and 98%, respectively. Per-polyp PPV, according to lesion morphology, was 94.6%, 97.3% and 85.1% for sessile, pedunculated and flat polyps, respectively. Per-patient PPV was 92.8%. Preparation without frank cathartics was reported to cause minimal discomfort by 78.9% of patients. Conclusion CTC without cathartic preparation and low-dose iodine faecal tagging may yield high PPVs for lesions >= 6 mm and is well accepted by patients. Key Points Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) without cathartic preparation is well accepted by patients Cathartic-free faecal tagging CTC yields high positive predictive values CTC without cathartic preparation could improve uptake of colorectal cancer screening

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据