MacCarty Robert L, Johnson C Daniel, Fletcher Joel G, Wilson Lynn A
Mayo Clinic, Mayo Medical School, Mary Clinic E-2, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 May;186(5):1380-3. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0031.
Our purpose was to determine the prevalence of polyps that are invisible on CT colonography (CTC) in a population previously screened for colorectal neoplasms. Differences in the prevalence of occult polyps in various populations might help explain the discordant reported sensitivities for polyp detection in published reports of CTC.
Seventy-five consecutive patients who had been previously screened for polyps underwent same-day colonoscopy and CTC. Many of the patients had personal histories of previous polypectomies and were undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. The scans were interpreted prospectively by an experienced radiologist. Polyps missed prospectively on CTC were analyzed retrospectively by three experienced radiologists and categorized as perception errors (visible in retrospect), technical errors (e.g., obscured by feces or fluid), or occult (invisible).
Thirty polyps 5 mm or larger were found at colonoscopy, 18 of which were missed prospectively on CTC. Of the 18 missed polyps, 12 could not be identified in retrospect, even though they were located in clean, dry, well-distended colonic segments. These were classified as occult. Ten of the 12 occult polyps showed flat morphology on review of colonoscopy video recordings. Of the remaining six missed polyps, two were classified as perception errors, two as technical errors, and two as a combination of technical and perception error.
In this population, colonographically occult polyps were common and accounted for more detection failures than perception errors and technical errors combined. The high prevalence of occult polyps may be explained by the fact that previous screening may have led to removal of easy-to-see polyps, creating a study population with a higher percentage of hard-to-see polyps.
我们的目的是确定在先前接受过结直肠肿瘤筛查的人群中,CT结肠成像(CTC)不可见息肉的患病率。不同人群中隐匿性息肉患病率的差异可能有助于解释在已发表的CTC报告中所报道的息肉检测敏感性不一致的情况。
75例先前接受过息肉筛查的连续患者在同一天接受了结肠镜检查和CTC检查。许多患者有既往息肉切除术的个人史,正在接受结肠镜监测。扫描图像由一位经验丰富的放射科医生进行前瞻性解读。三位经验丰富的放射科医生对在CTC检查中前瞻性漏诊的息肉进行回顾性分析,并将其分类为感知错误(事后可见)、技术错误(如被粪便或液体遮挡)或隐匿性(不可见)。
结肠镜检查发现30枚直径5mm或更大的息肉,其中18枚在CTC检查中被前瞻性漏诊。在这18枚漏诊息肉中,即使它们位于清洁、干燥、充分扩张的结肠段,仍有12枚事后无法识别。这些被归类为隐匿性息肉。在回顾结肠镜检查录像时,12枚隐匿性息肉中有10枚表现为扁平形态。在其余6枚漏诊息肉中,2枚被分类为感知错误,2枚为技术错误,2枚为技术和感知错误的组合。
在该人群中,结肠成像隐匿性息肉很常见,其导致的检测失败比感知错误和技术错误的总和还多。隐匿性息肉的高患病率可能是由于先前的筛查可能导致易于发现的息肉被切除,从而形成了一个难以发现的息肉比例更高的研究人群。