Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15217592

Understanding interpretive errors in radiologists learning computed tomography colonography.

Jeff L Fidler·Joel G Fletcher·C Daniel Johnson·James E Huprich·John M Barlow·Franklin Earnest·Brian J Bartholmai
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine if interpretive errors in the course of learning CT colonography are secondary to failures in detection or in characterization and determine the types of lesions frequently missed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen radiologists completed an electronic CTC training module consisting of two parts: 1) a teaching file demonstrating the varied appearances of polyps, cancers, and pitfalls in interpreting exams; and 2) a test of 50 complete CTC datasets. Following review of each test case, radiologists were asked to indicate if and where a polyp was visualized. The module then showed each neoplasm (if any) located within the dataset. For false negative examinations, radiologists indicated if the lesion was not seen, was seen but interpreted as colonic wall or fold, or was seen but interpreted as stool or fluid. RESULTS: The average sensitivity for sessile, pedunculated, and flat polyps for these novice readers was 76%, 63%, and 32%, respectively. Average sensitivity for all morphologies of cancers (annular, polypoid, flat) was high (93%, 85%, 95%), with 8/11 missed cancers being secondary to failure in detection. The most frequently missed cancer was an annular constricting tumor (5/11). Overall, 55% (73/132) of errors were failures of detection and 45% (59/132) were errors in characterization. CONCLUSION: Radiologists learning CT colonography had slightly more errors of detection than characterization, but this difference was not statistically significant. Flat and pedunculated polyps and annular constricting cancers were the most frequently missed morphologies. Examples of these abnormalities should be emphasized in CTC training programs.

Explore related subjects

Colonic NeoplasmsColonic PolypsColonography, Computed TomographicDiagnostic ErrorsEducation, Medical, ContinuingHumansRadiologySensitivity and SpecificityJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeff L Fidler, Joel G Fletcher, C Daniel Johnson, James E Huprich, John M Barlow, Franklin Earnest, Brian J Bartholmai. 2004. Understanding interpretive errors in radiologists learning computed tomography colonography.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2004.03.052

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Racial disparities in colon cancer. Primary care endoscopy as a tool to increase screening rates among minority patients.

Colon cancer is a condition whose far-reaching effects have been well documented nationally and within the state of South Carolina. Fortunately, the disease is amenable to both primary and secondary prevention through screening colonoscopy. Despite the conceptual simplicity of recommending colonoscopy, barriers exist to universal (or even widespread) screening. Currently the infrastructure necessary to achieve screening goals set by the American Cancer Society (ACS), the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) has not been established. At current rates of training gastroenterologists, the medical community will not be able to come close to achieving widespread screening. Given the discrepancy between the public health benefit of achieving the goals and the deaths that have occurred because of the resource shortfall, we propose alternative measures to screen the at-risk population for consideration. This need is most acute in the black community, in which where screening rates tend to be lower and polyps have been found to progress more quickly than among white populations. In South Carolina, one model has used primary care physicians as the labor force to provide routine screening colonoscopy for their own patients. This model makes screening much more accessible to minority patients, as the wait is shorter and the cost typically lower. In combination with a faith-based partnership with minority religious organizations, this model has begun to make needed inroads toward addressing the disparities associated with colon cancer. Cancer 2007. (c) 2006 American Cancer Society.

Colonic Neoplasms↗
PubMed2007

Influence of caseload and surgical speciality on outcome following surgery for colorectal cancer: a review of evidence. Part 2: long-term outcome.

OBJECTIVE: We reviewed recent literature to assess the impact of hospital caseload, surgeon's caseload and education on long-term outcome following colorectal cancer surgery. METHOD: We searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for relevant literature starting from 1992. We selected hospital caseload, surgeon's caseload and surgeon's education, type of hospital, and surgeon's experience as variables of interest. Measures of outcome were recurrence-free survival and overall survival, and for rectal cancer frequency of permanent stoma. We reviewed the 34 studies according to tumour location: colonic cancer, rectal cancer, or colorectal cancer. We described the studies individually and performed a meta-analysis whenever it was considered appropriate. RESULTS: For colonic cancer, overall survival improved with increasing hospital caseload, odds ratio (OR) 1.22 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-1.28], and surgeon's education. For rectal cancer, overall survival improved with increasing hospital caseload, OR 1.38 (95% CI 1.19-1.60), and, possibly by surgeon' education and experience. Cancer-free survival was strongly influenced by surgeon's education. The colostomy rate was less in high caseload hospitals, OR 0.76 (95% CI 0.68-0.85). For colorectal cancer, overall survival improved with surgeon's education. CONCLUSION: The data have provided evidence that long-term survival following colorectal cancer surgery in general improved significantly with increasing hospital caseload and surgeon's education.

Colonic Neoplasms↗
PubMed2007

Management of duodenal involvement in locally advanced colonic carcinoma.

Removal of locally advanced right-sided colonic carcinoma involving the duodenum can be challenging. There are few data on the optimal surgical approach. Adjacent organ involvement is associated with a poor prognosis and may be classified as inoperable with patients having palliative bypass procedures rather than primary resection. Survival is however improved after en bloc resection of adjoining viscera compared with intestinal bypass. We present a variety of surgical options depending on the extent of local invasion and the debility of the patient.

Colonic Neoplasms↗