The New Zealand medical journal · 2025
Computed tomography colonography performs poorly in detection of sessile serrated lesions.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kumar Shiristi, McCombie Andrew, Richards Simon, Glyn Tamara, Bone Emma, Eglinton Tim
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is an alternative to colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and colorectal cancer (CRC). One-third of CRCs arise via the sessile serrated pathway. Evidence supports using CTC to detect adenomas and CRC; however, its accuracy for sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) remains uncertain. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of CTC in detecting SSLs compared with colonoscopy.
METHOD: Electronic records identified all colonoscopy procedures where a histologically validated SSL was excised over a 11-month period. In those patients who had a CTC within 1 year prior to colonoscopy, the presence, size and location of SSLs were compared to determine the accuracy of CTC in SSL identification.
RESULTS: A total of 4,346 procedures were performed (2,548 people, 2,082 [47.9%] male, mean age 59.6). A total of 2,204 SSLs were removed, representing 24% of all polypectomies. SSLs were predominantly located in the right colon (65.1%) and were typically (85%) <10mm in size. A total of 110 SSLs were obtained from 39 procedures with a prior CTC. Of these procedures, 12 (30.8%) had lesions identified on CTC; however, CTC only accurately identified 14.5% of the total SSLs. Five of 16 (32%) SSLs ≥10mm were correctly identified compared with 11 of 94 (11%) SSLs 1-9mm, (odds ratio 3.42, p=0.0495).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that CTC has poor efficacy in detecting SSLs, irrespective of polyp size and location. Based on these findings, CTC as a substitute for colonoscopy is not advisable in patients at risk of SSLs.
METHOD: Electronic records identified all colonoscopy procedures where a histologically validated SSL was excised over a 11-month period. In those patients who had a CTC within 1 year prior to colonoscopy, the presence, size and location of SSLs were compared to determine the accuracy of CTC in SSL identification.
RESULTS: A total of 4,346 procedures were performed (2,548 people, 2,082 [47.9%] male, mean age 59.6). A total of 2,204 SSLs were removed, representing 24% of all polypectomies. SSLs were predominantly located in the right colon (65.1%) and were typically (85%) <10mm in size. A total of 110 SSLs were obtained from 39 procedures with a prior CTC. Of these procedures, 12 (30.8%) had lesions identified on CTC; however, CTC only accurately identified 14.5% of the total SSLs. Five of 16 (32%) SSLs ≥10mm were correctly identified compared with 11 of 94 (11%) SSLs 1-9mm, (odds ratio 3.42, p=0.0495).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that CTC has poor efficacy in detecting SSLs, irrespective of polyp size and location. Based on these findings, CTC as a substitute for colonoscopy is not advisable in patients at risk of SSLs.