Suppr超能文献

双重对比钡灌肠检查会漏诊哪些结直肠癌?

Which colorectal cancers are missed by double contrast barium enema?

作者信息

Tan K Y, Seow-Choen F, Ng C, Eu K W, Tang C L, Heah S M

机构信息

Department of Colorectal Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.

出版信息

Tech Coloproctol. 2004 Nov;8(3):169-72. doi: 10.1007/s10151-004-0082-4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The relative merits of either barium enema or colonoscopy for investigating lower gastrointestinal tract symptoms is still unclear. We studied the value of double contrast barium enema (DCBE) as the initial evaluation modality. We reviewed our 10-year experience of double contrast enemas as read by consultant radiologists. The study also aimed to identify which lesions are usually missed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed clinical data for all patients who underwent DCBE within the 6 months prior to surgical resection of colorectal cancer between April 1989 and April 1999. Patient demographics and tumour characteristics were analysed for their effects on the likelihood of the lesions being missed at DCBE.

RESULTS

There were 706 patients included in the study, 54.2% were male and the mean age was 63.7 years (SEM=0.5 years). The site along the colon and rectum of tumours missed by DCBE corresponded with the frequency of tumour occurrence at each site. The overall rate of missed lesions was 4.1% (29 of 706 patients); these patients were found on subsequent endoscopy to harbour cancer. Tumours less than 3 cm in length and with lesser extent of circumferential involvement were more likely missed at DCBE (p=0.05 and p=0.01, respectively). Age, sex, and tumour grade and stage were not significant predictors of the likelihood of missed lesions. Of the 29 patients with missed lesions, 77.2% had a serum concentration of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) above the normal range (3.5 microg/l). The mean follow-up was 65.3 months (SEM=1.8 months). The overall survival for this series was 60.1%. The inaccuracy of the initial DCBE was not found to cause statistically significant differences in the stage of the tumour at diagnosis nor the overall survival of the patients in our series.

CONCLUSIONS

Smaller cancers without circumferential involvement may be missed when DCBE is performed to evaluate lower gastrointestinal symptoms. Further evaluation by colonoscopy must be recommended when symptoms persist, especially in the context of a raised CEA level.

摘要

背景

对于调查下消化道症状而言,钡灌肠或结肠镜检查各自的相对优点仍不明确。我们研究了双重对比钡灌肠(DCBE)作为初始评估方式的价值。我们回顾了由放射科顾问医生解读双重对比灌肠的10年经验。该研究还旨在确定哪些病变通常会被漏诊。

患者与方法

我们回顾了1989年4月至1999年4月期间在结直肠癌手术切除前6个月内接受DCBE的所有患者的临床资料。分析了患者的人口统计学特征和肿瘤特征对DCBE漏诊病变可能性的影响。

结果

该研究纳入了706例患者,其中54.2%为男性,平均年龄为63.7岁(标准误=0.5岁)。DCBE漏诊的肿瘤在结肠和直肠的部位与各部位肿瘤发生频率相符。漏诊病变的总体发生率为4.1%(706例患者中有29例);这些患者在随后的内镜检查中被发现患有癌症。长度小于3 cm且圆周受累程度较小的肿瘤在DCBE时更易被漏诊(分别为p = 0.05和p = 0.01)。年龄、性别、肿瘤分级和分期并非漏诊病变可能性的显著预测因素。在29例漏诊病变的患者中,77.2%的癌胚抗原(CEA)血清浓度高于正常范围(3.5μg/l)。平均随访时间为65.3个月(标准误=1.8个月)。该系列患者的总体生存率为60.1%。未发现初始DCBE的不准确性在诊断时肿瘤分期或本系列患者的总体生存率方面导致统计学上的显著差异。

结论

在进行DCBE评估下消化道症状时,可能会漏诊无圆周受累的较小癌症。当症状持续时,尤其是在CEA水平升高的情况下,必须建议进一步进行结肠镜检查。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验