[en] AIM: To determine whether the internet is a useful resource for patients seeking information on radiological procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the world wide web was performed by means of four general search engines (AltaVista, Yahoo!, Infoseek and Excite). Twenty-eight suitable patient-directed websites on arteriography were identified for analysis. The value of this material was measured by establishing inclusion or exclusion of a number of factors relating to the procedure. Readability of the materials was evaluated using the Flesch reading ease score. RESULTS: Advice on preparation was included in 21 (75%) sites. Contraindications were found in 16 (57%) sites, risks in 6 (21%) and aftercare in 25 (89%). Result availability was discussed in 15 (54%) sites, with links to other radiology sites in 13 (46%). Visual aids were used in 6 (21%) sites and a contact address found in 27 (96%). Mean Flesch reading ease score was 57, with 46% of sites below the preferred minimum of 60. CONCLUSIONS: Few sites provide the range of information a patient needs before arriving for a procedure. In addition, the readability of the material on these sites is frequently set at a level incomprehensible to patients with lower levels of literacy. Smart, J.M. and Burling, D. (2001)

[en] There are many potential challenges to developing a high quality, efficient CT colonography service. Some are clear and predictable, for example creating CT capacity and securing financial resources, but some are less obvious, such as harnessing local support or changing referral practice amongst clinical colleagues. Notwithstanding, such barriers will need to be overcome to deliver a well-resourced, successful CT colonography programme. This article utilises the authors’ experience of developing their own CT colonography service from scratch (now examining >1200 patients per annum) and relevant published articles on ‘Standards’ of practice and training to recommend how others might provide CT colonography in their own patient communities. We offer a practical guide and will emphasise the need for a multi-disciplinary approach with locally agreed protocols and service objectives

[en] This study investigated the variability in baseline computed tomography colonography (CTC) performance using untrained readers by documenting sources of error to guide future training requirements. Twenty CTC endoscopically validated data sets containing 32 polyps were consensus read by three unblinded radiologists experienced in CTC, creating a reference standard. Six readers without prior CTC training [four residents and two board-certified subspecialty gastrointestinal (GI) radiologists] read the 20 cases. Readers drew a region of interest (ROI) around every area they considered a potential colonic lesion, even if subsequently dismissed, before creating a final report. Using this final report, reader ROIs were classified as true positive detections, true negatives correctly dismissed, true detections incorrectly dismissed (i.e., classification error), or perceptual errors. Detection of polyps 1-5 mm, 6-9 mm, and ≥10 mm ranged from 7.1% to 28.6%, 16.7% to 41.7%, and 16.7% to 83.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference between polyp detection or false positives for the GI radiologists compared with residents (p=0.67, p=0.4 respectively). Most missed polyps were due to failure of detection rather than characterization (range 82-95%). Untrained reader performance is variable but generally poor. Most missed polyps are due perceptual error rather than characterization, suggesting basic training should focus heavily on lesion detection. (orig.)

[en] The effect of field of view on mucosal visualisation and reader efficiency during three-dimensional endoluminal CT colonography (CTC) was investigated. Twenty CTC datasets were reviewed at standard 90-degree and ''wide'' 140-degree viewing angles using customised viewing software (V3D colon; Viatronix), which listed number and size of missed mucosal areas (''missed regions tool'') and percentage mucosal visualisation. We compared: (1) unidirectional and bidirectional flythrough using 140- versus 90-degree viewing angles; (2) reader analysis time comparing unidirectional 140-degree flythrough versus bidirectional 90-degree flythrough; (3) paired image snapshots of 12 polyps taken at each field of view were reviewed to assess conspicuity. All patients underwent conventional colonoscopy. Bidirectional 140-degree review reduced the numbers of missed areas by between eight- and 40-fold depending on size category, including those >1,000 mm², compared with standard 90-degree bidirectional flythrough (P<0.001). Combined prone-supine unidirectional 140-degree flythrough and missed area review was 3.8 min faster than 90-degree bidirectional review (9.3 versus 5.5 min, P< 0.0001) for the same surface visualisation. When viewed as pairs, polyps were rated more conspicuous with a 90-degree field of view, P=0.03. Wide-angle (140-degree) CTC can reduce both numbers of missed areas and review times. However, this may be at the expense of polyp conspicuity. (orig.)

[en] The aim of this study was to compare the morphology, radiological stage, conspicuity, and computer-assisted detection (CAD) characteristics of colorectal cancers (CRC) detected by computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in screening and symptomatic populations. Two radiologists independently analyzed CTC images from 133 patients diagnosed with CRC in (a) two randomized trials of symptomatic patients (35 patients with 36 tumours) and (b) a screening program using fecal occult blood testing (FOBt; 98 patients with 100 tumours), measuring tumour length, volume, morphology, radiological stage, and subjective conspicuity. A commercial CAD package was applied to both datasets. We compared CTC characteristics between screening and symptomatic populations with multivariable regression. Screen-detected CRC were significantly smaller (mean 3.0 vs 4.3 cm, p < 0.001), of lower volume (median 9.1 vs 23.2 cm"3, p < 0.001) and more frequently polypoid (34/100, 34 % vs. 5/36, 13.9 %, p = 0.02) than symptomatic CRC. They were of earlier stage than symptomatic tumours (OR = 0.17, 95 %CI 0.07-0.41, p < 0.001), and were judged as significantly less conspicuous (mean conspicuity 54.1/100 vs. 72.8/100, p < 0.001). CAD detection was significantly lower for screen-detected (77.4 %; 95 %CI 67.9-84.7 %) than symptomatic CRC (96.9 %; 95 %CI 83.8-99.4 %, p = 0.02). Screen-detected CRC are significantly smaller, more frequently polypoid, subjectively less conspicuous, and less likely to be identified by CAD than those in symptomatic patients. (orig.)

[en] To determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan. Retrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiology Information System data for CTC examinations from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015. For each examination, we determined how many prior CTCs had been interpreted by the reporting radiologist on that day and how long radiologists spent on interpretation. For each radiologist, we calculated their referral rate (proportion deemed positive for 6 mm+ polyp/cancer), positive predictive value (PPV) and endoscopic/surgically proven polyp detection rate (PDR). We also calculated the mean time each radiologist spent interpreting normal studies (“negative interpretation time”). We used multilevel logistic regression to investigate the relationship between the number of scans reported each day, negative interpretation time and referral rate, PPV and PDR. Five thousand one hundred ninety-one scans were interpreted by seven radiologists; 892 (17.2%) were reported as positive, and 534 (10.3%) had polyps confirmed. Both referral rate and PDR reduced as more CTCs were reported on a given day (p < 0.001), the odds reducing by 7% for each successive CTC interpreted. Radiologists reporting more slowly than their colleagues detected more polyps (p = 0.028), with each 16% increase in interpretation time associated with a 1% increase in PDR. PPV was unaffected. Reporting multiple CTCs on a given day and rapid CTC interpretation are associated with decreased polyp detection. Radiologists should be protected from requirements to report too many CTCs or too quickly.

[en] To review primary research evidence investigating performance of CT colonography for colorectal cancer surveillance. The financial impact of using CT colonography for surveillance was also estimated. We identified primary studies of CT colonography for surveillance of colorectal cancer patients. A summary ROC curve was constructed. Inter-study heterogeneity was explored using the I2 value. Financial impact was estimated for a theoretical cohort of patients, based on Cancer Research UK statistics. Seven studies provided data on 880 patients. Five of seven studies (765 patients) were included for qualitative analysis. Sensitivity of CT colonography for detection of anastomotic recurrence was 95 % (95 % CI 62 - 100), specificity 100 % (95 % CI 75 - 100) and sensitivity for metachronous cancers was 100 %. No statistical heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 0 %). We estimated that CT colonography as a 'single test' alternative to colonoscopy and standard CT for surveillance would potentially save EUR20,785,232 (pound 14,803,404) for an annual cohort of UK patients. CT colonography compares favourably to colonoscopy for detection of anastomotic recurrence and metachronous colorectal cancer, and appears financially beneficial. These findings should be considered alongside limitations of small patient numbers and high clinical heterogeneity between studies. (orig.)

[en] To establish the optimum barium-based reduced-laxative tagging regimen prior to CT colonography (CTC). Ninety-five subjects underwent reduced-laxative (13 g senna/18 g magnesium citrate) CTC prior to same-day colonoscopy and were randomised to one of four tagging regimens using 20 ml 40%w/v barium sulphate: regimen A: four doses, B: three doses, C: three doses plus 220 ml 2.1% barium sulphate, or D: three doses plus 15 ml diatriazoate megluamine. Patient experience was assessed immediately after CTC and 1 week later. Two radiologists graded residual stool (1: none/scattered to 4: >50% circumference) and tagging efficacy for stool (1: untagged to 5: 100% tagged) and fluid (1: untagged, 2: layered, 3: tagged), noting the HU of tagged fluid. Preparation was good (76-94% segments graded 1), although best for regimen D (P = 0.02). Across all regimens, stool tagging quality was high (mean 3.7-4.5) and not significantly different among regimens. The HU of layered tagged fluid was higher for regimens C/D than A/B (P = 0.002). Detection of cancer (n = 2), polyps ≥6 mm (n = 21), and ≤5 mm (n = 72) was 100, 81 and 32% respectively, with only four false positives ≥6 mm. Reduced preparation was tolerated better than full endoscopic preparation by 61%. Reduced-laxative CTC with three doses of 20 ml 40% barium sulphate is as effective as more complex regimens, retaining adequate diagnostic accuracy. (orig.)

[en] The purpose of this paper was to investigate the effect of radiologist experience and increasing exposure to CT colonography on reader performance. Three radiologists of differing general experience (consultant, research fellow, trainee) independently analysed 100 CT colonographic datasets. Readers had no prior experience of CT colonography and received feedback and training after the first 50 cases from an independent experienced radiologist. Diagnostic performance and reporting times were compared for the first and second 50 datasets and compared with the results of a radiologist experienced in CT colonography. Before training only the consultant reader achieved statistical equivalence with the reference standard for detection of larger polyps. After training, detection rates ranged between 25 and 58% for larger polyps. Only the trainee significantly improved after training (P=0.007), with performance of other readers unchanged or even worse. Reporting times following training were reduced significantly for the consultant and fellow (P<0.001 and P=0.03, respectively), but increased for the trainee (P<0.001). In comparison to the consultant reader, the odds of detection of larger polyps was 0.36 (CI 0.16, 0.82) for the fellow and 0.36 (CI 0.14, 0.91) for the trainee. There is considerable variation in the ability to report CT colonography. Prior experience in gastrointestinal radiology is a distinct advantage. Competence cannot be assumed even after directed training via a database of 50 cases. (orig.)

[en] Our purpose was to assess the effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings on interpretation time for CT colonography. Nine radiologists (experienced in CT colonography); nine radiologists and ten technicians (both groups trained using 50 validated examinations) read 40 cases (50% abnormal) under controlled conditions. Individual interpretation times for each case were recorded, and differences between groups determined. Multi-level linear regression was used to investigate effect of scan category (normal or abnormal) and observer fatigue on interpretation times. Experienced radiologists (mean time 10.9 min, SD 5.2) reported significantly faster than less experienced radiologists and technicians; odds ratios of reporting times 1.4 (CI 1.1, 1.8) and 1.6 (1.3, 2.0), respectively (P≤0.001). Experienced and less-experienced radiologists took longer to report abnormal cases; ratio 1.2 (CI 1.1,1.4, P<0.001) and 1.2 (1.0, 1.3, P=0.03), respectively. All groups took 70% as long to report the final five cases as they did with an initial five; ratio 0.7 (CI 0.6 to 0.8), P<0.001. For technicians only, accuracy increased with longer reporting times (P=0.04). Experienced radiologists report faster than do less-experienced observers and proportionally spend less time interpreting normal cases. Technicians who report more slowly are more accurate. All groups reported faster as the study period progressed. (orig.)