Estratto
L’utilizzo in ambito clinico e la diffusione della colonscopia virtuale (CV) non può prescindere da un’adeguata conoscenza delle prestazioni della metodica. E altrettanto importante è anche saper interpretare i risultati, alla luce dei diversi fattori coinvolti nel processo che li hanno determinati, e cioè:
-
le differenti tecnologie hardware e software,ovverosia le apparecchiature TC (singolo o multistrato) impiegate;
-
i diversi metodi di preparazione intestinale del paziente (utilizzo di lassativi, tecniche di marcatura delle feci, preparazioni ridotte);
-
la qualità degli esami;
-
la numerosità e la tipologia della popolazione di pazienti studiata (con alta prevalenza di malattia, o gruppi di soggetti valutati per screening e, tra questi, quelli a rischio medio o più alto della media);
-
i programmi di analisi delle immagini utilizzati per la lettura (lettura primaria 2D o 3D);
-
il numero di lettori;
-
l’uso di sistemi di ausilio alla diagnosi (Computed Assisted Diagnosis, CAD);
-
l’esperienza degli operatori.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliografia
Doshi T, Rusinak D, Halvorsen RA et al (2007) CT colonography: false-negative interpretations. Radiology 244:165–173
European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology CT Colonography Study Group Investigators (2007) Effect of directed training on reader performance for CT colonography: multicenter study. Radiology 242:152–161
Johnson CD, Toledano AY, Herman BA et al (2003) Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting. Gastroenterology 125:311–319
Spinzi G, Belloni G, Martegani A et al (2001) Computer tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Gastroenterol 96:394–400
Hara AK, Johnson CD, Reed JE et al (1997) Detection of colorectal polyps with CT colography: initial assessment of sensitivity and specificity. Radiology 205:59–65
Johnson CD, Hara AK, Reed JE (1997) Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a new method for detecting colorectal neoplasms. Endoscopy 29:454–461
Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC 3rd et al (1999) A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 341:1496–1503
Rex DK, Vining D, Kopecky KK (1999) An initial experience with screening for colon polyps using spiral CT with and without CT colography. Gastrointest Endosc 50:309–313
Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ et al (2000) Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology 216:704–711
Miao YM, Amin Z, Healy J et al (2000) A prospective single centre study comparing computed tomography pneumocolon against colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal neoplasms. Gut 47:832–837
Mendelson RM, Foster NM, Edwards JT et al (2000) Virtual colonoscopy compared with conventional colonoscopy: a developing technology. Med J Aust 173:472–475
Pescatore P, Glucker T, Delarive J et al (2000) Diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer agreement of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Gut 47:126–130
Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK et al (2001) Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 219:685–692
Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone I et al (2002) Detection of colorectal lesions with virtual computed tomographic colonography. Am J Surg 183:124–131
Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone I et al (2002) Computed tomographic colonography (Virtual colonoscopy): blinded prospective comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. Endoscopy 34:441–446
Ginnerup Pedersen B, Christiansen TE, Bjerregaard NC et al (2003) Colonoscopy and multidetector-array computed-tomographic colonography: detection rates and feasibility. Endoscopy 35:736–742
Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al (2003) Performance of lower dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal lesions. Radiology 229:775–781
Pineau BC, Paskett ED, Chen GJ et al (2003) Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonosocpy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 125:304–310
Cohnen M, Vogt C, Beck A et al (2004) Feasibility of MDCT colonography in ultra-low-dose technique in the detection of colorectal lesions: comparison with high-resolution video colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1355–1359
Hoppe H, Netzer P, Spreng A et al (2004) Prospective comparison of contrast enhanced CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasms in a single institutional study using second-look colonoscopy with discrepant results. Am J Gastroenterol 99;1924–1935
Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127;1300–1311
Van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 127:41–48
Sosna J, Morrin MM, Kruskal JB et al (2003) CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:1593–1598
Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA et al (2005) CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology 237:893–904
Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL (2005) Metaanalysis: computed tomographic colonography Ann Intern Med 142:635–650
Rosman AS, Korsten MA (2007) Meta-analysis comparing CT colonography, air contrast barium enema, and coonoscopy Am J Med 120:203–210
Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B (1993) Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve:fata-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 12:1293–1316
Walter SD (2002) Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med 21:1237–1256
Moayyedi P, Achkr E. (2006) Does fecal occult blood testing reduce mortality? A reanalysis of sistematic data. Am J Gastroenterol 101:380–384
Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP Jr, Weiss NS (1992) A case control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 326:653–657
Winawer SJ, Stewart ET, Zauber AG et al (2000) A comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomy. National Polyp Study Work Group. N Engl J Med 342:1766–1772
Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, Welch TJ et al (2004) Comparison of the relative sensitivity of CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2:314–321
AGA Clinical Practice and Economics Committee (2006) Position of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute on computed tomographic colonography. Gastroenterology 131:1627–1628
Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed Tomographic Virtual Colonoscopy to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia in Asymptomatic Adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200
Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA et al (2003) Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 125:311–319
Summers RM, Yao J, Pickhardt PJ et al (2005) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computeraided polyp detection in a screening population. Gastroenterology 129:1832–1844
Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 291:1713–1719
Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D et al (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365:305–311
Ferrucci J, Barish M, Choi R et al (2004) Virtual colonoscopy. JAMA 292:431–432
Johnson CD (2008) Results of the ACRIN Colonography Trial. Radiology (P):100
Regge D (2008) Accuracy of CT-colonography in subjects at increased risk of colorectal carcinoma: a multicenter study on 1,000 patients. Radiology (P):337
Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D et al (2008) Prospective comparison of colonoscopy, CT colonography, and stool tests in an average risk population: results from the Munich colorectal cancer prevention trial. European Congress of Radiology (ECR), Vienna, Marzo 7-11, 319 (abstract)
Halligan S, Lilford RJ, Wardle J et al (2007) Design of a multicentre randomized trial to evaluate CT colonography versus colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colonic cancer in older symptomatic patients: The SIGGAR study. Trials 278:32
Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) Screening and Surveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Adenomatous Polyps, 2008: A Joint Guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin, Mar 5 [Epub ahead of print]
Edwards JT, Mendelson RM, Fritschi L et al (2004) Colorectal Neoplasia Screening with CTC Colonography in average-risk asymptomatic subjects: Community based study. Radiology 230:459–464
Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Kim DH et al (2006) Screening for colorectal neoplasia with CT Colonography: Initial Experience from The 1st Year of Coverage by Third-Party Payers. Radiology 241:417–425
Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ et al (2007) CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia N Engl J Med 357:1403–1412
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Laghi, A., Iafrate, F., Cecco, C.D. (2008). Risultati. In: La colonscopia virtuale. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1067-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1067-3_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Milano
Print ISBN: 978-88-470-1066-6
Online ISBN: 978-88-470-1067-3
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)