Brief Article
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 14, 2014; 20(6): 1574-1581
Published online Feb 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i6.1574
Does training and experience influence the accuracy of computed tomography colonography interpretation?
Greg Rosenfeld, Yi Tzu Nancy Fu, Brendan Quiney, Hong Qian, Darin Krygier, Jacquie Brown, Patrick Vos, Pari Tiwari, Jennifer Telford, Brian Bressler, Robert Enns
Greg Rosenfeld, Yi Tzu Nancy Fu, Brendan Quiney, Hong Qian, Darin Krygier, Jacquie Brown, Patrick Vos, Pari Tiwari, Jennifer Telford, Brian Bressler, Robert Enns, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada
Brendan Quiney, Jacquie Brown, Patrick Vos, Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada
Hong Qian, CHEOS, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada
Darin Krygier, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster, BC V3L 3W7, Canada
Author contributions: Rosenfeld G, Krygier D, Brown J, Vos P, Telford J, Bressler B and Enns R designed the research; Rosenfeld G, Fu YTN, Quiney B, Krygier D, Brown J, Vos P and Tiwari P read and interpreted CT scans and collected data; Telford J, Bressler B and Enns R performed the colonoscopy and collected data; Qian H provided the data analysis; Rosenfeld G and Enns R were the primary authors writing the manuscript but all of the authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript.
Correspondence to: Greg Rosenfeld, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, St. Paul’s Hospital, 770-1190 Hornby Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada. grosenfeld@telus.net
Telephone: +1-604-3299552 Fax: +1-604-6892004
Received: August 8, 2013
Revised: October 12, 2013
Accepted: December 12, 2013
Published online: February 14, 2014
Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the effect of experience on the accuracy rate of computed tomography colonography (CTC) interpretation and patient preferences/satisfaction for CTC and colonoscopy.

METHODS: A prospective, non-randomized, observational study performed in a single, tertiary care center involving 90 adults who underwent CTC followed by colonoscopy on the same day. CTC was interpreted by an abdominal imaging radiologist and then a colonoscopy was performed utilizing segmental un-blinding and re-examination as required. A radiology resident and two gastroenterology (GI) fellows blinded to the results also interpreted the CTC datasets independently. Accuracy rates and trend changes were determined for each reader to assess for a learning curve.

RESULTS: Among 90 patients (57% male) aged 55 ± 8.9 years, 39 polyps ≥ 6 mm were detected in 20 patients and 13 polyps > 9 mm in 10 patients. Accuracy rates were 88.9% (≥ 6 mm) and 93.3% (> 9 mm) for the GI Radiologist, 89.8% (≥ 6 mm) and 98.9% (> 9 mm) for the Radiology Resident and 86.7% and 95.6% (≥ 6 mm) and 87.8% and 94.4% (> 9 mm) for each of the GI fellows respectively. The reader’s accuracy rate did not change significantly with the percentage change rate ranging between -1.7 to 0.9 (P = 0.12 to 0.56). Patients considered colonoscopy more satisfactory than CTC (30% vs 4%, P < 0.0001), they felt less anxiety during colonoscopy (36% vs 7%, P < 0.0001), they experienced less pain or discomfort during colonoscopy compared to CTC (69% vs 4%, P < 0.0001) and colonoscopy was preferred by 77% of the participants as a repeat screening test for the future.

CONCLUSION: No statistically significant learning curve was identified in CTC interpretation suggesting that further study is required to identify the necessary training to adequately interpret CTC scans.

Keywords: Computed tomography colonography, Colonoscopy, Colorectal neoplasia, Colorectal cancer screening

Core tip: In this study, novice readers and experienced radiologists had similar accuracy rates for the detection of colonic neoplasia utilizing computed tomography colonography (CTC) as a screening tool. The optimal number of scans required to achieve satisfactory performance in CTC interpretation was not identified suggesting that larger scale studies are required to identify the training requirements necessary for adequate CTC interpretation. Patient preferences for CTC and colonoscopy were assessed by means of a self completion survey and patients were found to prefer colonoscopy to CTC as a screening tool, likely because of the use of conscious sedation.