Ferrucci Joseph T
Department of Radiology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, 88 East Newton, Atrium 2, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jul;187(1):170-3. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0900.
This study examines the use and yield of double-contrast barium enemas (DCBEs) for colorectal polyp detection in current clinical practice outside the research setting.
My colleagues and I retrospectively reviewed adult DCBE studies performed in routine clinical practice at a single academic institution from 2001 through 2004 by reviewing the official radiology and colonoscopy reports. Data were collected on indications for a DCBE, number of positive and negative DCBE reports, results of a DCBE after failed colonoscopy, and professional profiles of the radiologists who performed the DCBEs. Correlation for colon polyp detection was made by reviewing reports of colonoscopy performed within 12 months before or after a DCBE. Polyp detection and matching analysis used a six-segment colon localization scheme.
A total of 244 out of 665 (36.7%) barium enema studies were performed using the double-contrast technique over the 4-year period-that is, approximately one per week. The most common indication for a DCBE (109/244 or 44.6%) was to complete a failed, incomplete, or inconclusive colonoscopy. Overall, only 14 of the 244 (5.7%) studies gave positive reports for polyps, and of these, five were shown to be false-positive at later colonoscopy. Only six polyps 10 mm or larger were positively detected during the entire study, which is approximately one per 60 studies or one every 8 months. In 104 patients who had negative DCBEs after failed or inconclusive colonoscopy, more than 50 subcentimeter polyps had been detected and removed, yet not one additional polyp was detected by a DCBE. Of the 15 radiologists performing the DCBEs during the study period, 89.7% of the studies were done by four individuals. Three of these four radiologists were older than 60 years at the beginning of the study, and two of them are now either retired or no longer perform fluoroscopy.
In our center, a DCBE is a low-yield procedure for detecting polyps, with a high false-positive rate, and is not likely to be performed by experienced practitioners in the future.
本研究探讨在研究环境之外的当前临床实践中,双重对比钡灌肠(DCBE)用于检测结直肠息肉的应用情况及检出率。
我和同事通过回顾官方放射学及结肠镜检查报告,对2001年至2004年在一家学术机构进行的常规临床实践中的成人DCBE研究进行了回顾性分析。收集了DCBE的适应证、DCBE阳性和阴性报告数量、结肠镜检查失败后DCBE的结果以及进行DCBE的放射科医生的专业资料。通过回顾在DCBE前后12个月内进行的结肠镜检查报告,对结肠息肉检测进行相关性分析。息肉检测和匹配分析采用六段结肠定位方案。
在4年期间,665例钡灌肠研究中有244例(36.7%)采用了双重对比技术,即大约每周1例。DCBE最常见的适应证(109/244或44.6%)是完成失败、不完整或不确定的结肠镜检查。总体而言,244例研究中只有14例(5.7%)给出了息肉阳性报告,其中5例在后来的结肠镜检查中被证明为假阳性。在整个研究期间,仅阳性检测到6枚直径10毫米或更大的息肉,约每60例研究中有1例,或每8个月有1例。在104例结肠镜检查失败或不确定后DCBE结果为阴性的患者中,已检测并切除了50多枚亚厘米级息肉,但DCBE未再检测到额外的息肉。在研究期间进行DCBE的15名放射科医生中,89.7%的研究由4人完成。这4名放射科医生中有3人在研究开始时年龄超过60岁,其中2人现已退休或不再进行荧光透视检查。
在我们中心,DCBE检测息肉的产出率低,假阳性率高,未来经验丰富的从业者不太可能进行该检查。