Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate?

Gopalswamy, N.; Shenoy, Vishwanath N.; Choudhry, Umesh; Markert, Ronald J.; Peace, Nancy E.; Bhutani, Manoop S.; Barde, Christopher J.

doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(97)70003-8

Cited by 153 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Occasional studies have described smaller endoscopy sizing compared with pathology. 44,48 One study, also performed in the BCS setting within the UK, reported no significant difference between endoscopy size (in vivo) and pathology size (macroscopic, post-fixation). 50 Endoscopy sizing can be performed in vivo or after retrieval once in the specimen container.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison of endoscopy versus pathology sizing of colorectal adenomas and potential implications for surveillance colonoscopy

Taylor

Coleman²,

Gray³

et al. 2016

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[44][45][46][47][48][49][50] As such, the evidence base for making recommendations on sizing is limited, and requires expansion.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of endoscopy versus pathology sizing of colorectal adenomas and potential implications for surveillance colonoscopy

Taylor

Coleman²,

Gray³

et al. 2016

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…During colonoscopy, it is important to correctly measure the size of the polyps because of the direct correlation of size with colon cancer. 1 During polypectomy, size of the colonic polyps encountered are often gauged by visual estimation or the open forceps method. 2 However, some data exists on the questionable reliability of a visual estimate even amongst expert colonoscopists.…”

Section: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 We have previously identified an increased risk of VTE 2 in patients attending for endoscopic procedures although this was confined to those with predisposing factors including malignancy. This study examined the incidence of VTE in patients with positive faecal occult blood tests attending for bowel cancer screening colonoscopy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

PWE-008 A Novel Sampling Device For Collecting Mucocellular Material From The Rectum

Booth

Lacy‐Colson

Norwood

et al. 2014

Gut

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For CTC, a polyp was considered true-positive, if: (1) its appearance resembled the corresponding polyp at colonoscopy, (2) its segment or adjacent segment corresponded with the reference standard segment and (3) the polyp size as estimated by the endoscopist corresponded with size as measured on CTC, considering a margin of error of 50%. Since the colonoscopy measurement is subject to inaccuracy [21,22] this criterion could be overruled by the first two criteria.…”

Section: Determination Of Lesion Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?Abstract We prospectively determined whether computer-aided detection (CAD) could improve the performance characteristics of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in a population of increased risk for colorectal cancer. Therefore, we included 170 consecutive patients that underwent both CTC and colonoscopy. All findings ≥6 mm were evaluated at colonoscopy by segmental unblinding. We determined perpatient sensitivity and specificity for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm without and with computer-aided detection (CAD). The McNemar test was used for comparison the results without and with CAD. Unblinded colonoscopy detected 50 patients with lesions ≥6 mm and 25 patients with lesions ≥10 mm. Sensitivity of CTC without CAD for these size categories was 80% (40/50, 95% CI: 69-81%) and 64% (16/25, 95% CI: 45-83%), respectively. CTC with CAD detected one additional patient with a lesion ≥6 mm and two with a lesion ≥10 mm, resulting in a sensitivity of 82% (41/50, 95% CI: 71-93%) (p=0.50) and 72% (18/25, 95% CI: 54-90%) (p=1.0), respectively. Specificity without CAD for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm was 84% (101/120, 95% CI: 78-91%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90-98%), respectively. With CAD, the specificity remained (nearly) unchanged: 83% (99/120, 95% CI: 76-89%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90-98%), respectively. Thus, although CTC with CAD detected a few more patients than CTC without CAD, it had no statistically significant positive influence on CTC performance.

show abstract

Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate?

Cited by 153 publications

References 13 publications

A comparison of endoscopy versus pathology sizing of colorectal adenomas and potential implications for surveillance colonoscopy

A comparison of endoscopy versus pathology sizing of colorectal adenomas and potential implications for surveillance colonoscopy

PWE-008 A Novel Sampling Device For Collecting Mucocellular Material From The Rectum

Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About