Nagata Koichi, Okawa Tomohiko, Honma Akihiro, Endo Shungo, Kudo Shin-ei, Yoshida Hiroyuki
Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 25 New Chardon St., Suite 400C, MA 02114, USA.
Acad Radiol. 2009 Jul;16(7):780-9. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.12.027. Epub 2009 Apr 17.
To compare prospectively 64-detector-row computed tomographic colonography (CTC) after a full-laxative tagging-based preparation (full preparation) with a minimum-laxative tagging-based preparation (minimum preparation) with respect to diagnostic performance in the detection of polyps, tagging quality, and patient acceptance.
Consecutive 101 patients at high risk for developing colorectal cancer were alternately assigned to either a full preparation group (n = 51) or a minimum preparation group (n = 50) for fecal-tagging CTC. The full preparation consisted of administration of 2-L polyethylene glycol solution with 20 mL of sodium diatrizoate for fecal tagging. The minimum preparation consisted of ingestion of a total of 45 mL of sodium diatrizoate during the 3 days before and 10 mL of sodium picosulfate solution the night before CT. Colonoscopy was used as the reference standard. We assessed the accuracy of polyp detection and the tagging quality for each preparation. All patients were given questionnaires related to their acceptance.
Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for polyps > or = 6 mm were as follows: full preparation group, 97%, 92%, 88%, and 98%, respectively; minimum preparation group, 88%, 68%, 56%, and 92%, respectively. Average visual subjective tagging scores for the full and minimum preparation groups were 94.6% and 76.1%, respectively (P < .0001). Minimum preparation was better tolerated than full preparation.
Although full-laxative and minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CTC yielded an equally high sensitivity in the detection of polyps > or = 6 mm, the full-laxative fecal-tagging CTC yielded a better specificity than did the minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CTC. Thus, it is desirable to offer patients an option of either full-laxative fecal-tagging CTC for highest diagnostic accuracy and ability to perform a same-day therapeutic colonoscopy without additional bowel preparation, or minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CTC for those unwilling to undergo full preparation but willing to accept moderate decrease in specificity.
前瞻性比较基于充分泻药标记准备(充分准备)的64排螺旋CT结肠成像(CTC)与基于最小泻药标记准备(最小准备)的CTC在息肉检测的诊断性能、标记质量和患者接受度方面的差异。
将101例结直肠癌高危患者交替分配至粪便标记CTC的充分准备组(n = 51)或最小准备组(n = 50)。充分准备包括服用2L聚乙二醇溶液加20mL泛影酸钠进行粪便标记。最小准备包括在CT检查前3天共摄入45mL泛影酸钠,检查前一晚服用10mL比沙可啶溶液。以结肠镜检查作为参考标准。我们评估了每种准备方式下息肉检测的准确性和标记质量。所有患者均接受了关于接受度的问卷调查。
对于直径≥6mm的息肉,每位患者的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值如下:充分准备组分别为97%、92%、88%和98%;最小准备组分别为88%、68%、56%和92%。充分准备组和最小准备组的平均视觉主观标记评分分别为94.6%和76.1%(P < .0001)。最小准备比充分准备的耐受性更好。
尽管充分泻药和最小泻药粪便标记CTC在检测直径≥6mm的息肉方面具有同样高的敏感性,但充分泻药粪便标记CTC的特异性优于最小泻药粪便标记CTC。因此,对于患者来说,最好有以下选择:一是充分泻药粪便标记CTC,以获得最高的诊断准确性,并能够在无需额外肠道准备的情况下进行同日治疗性结肠镜检查;二是最小泻药粪便标记CTC,适用于那些不愿接受充分准备但愿意接受特异性适度降低的患者。