A comparison of colonoscopy and roentgenography for detecting polypoid lesions of the colon
- 16 Downloads
This study compares the effectiveness of the roentgen and colonoscopic examination of the colon for detecting polypoid lesions. We evaluated the findings in 64 patients with suspected or known polypoid lesions who received the same colon cleansing regimen for both examinations, and were studied by examiners of similar expertise. As in other studies, the endoscopist had the advantage of knowing the roentgen findings, and the colonoscopic findings were often taken to indicate whether or not a lesion was present. In about half the patients, however, a second roentgen examination, repeat colonoscopy, or surgical specimen provided additional information for scoring. For example, a filling defect of the same size and location on two roentgen examinations, but not demonstrated at colonoscopy was scored as a false negative colonoscopic finding.
The study results indicate that 54% of small polyps ≦0.9 cm in size were missed on roentgen examination, whereas no proven misses for lesions of this size were shown for colonoscopy. This absence of colonoscopic false-negative findings for small polyps, however, may be partially explained by a relative insensitivity of the roentgen method. For larger lesions ≧1.0 cm in size the miss-rate for the two examinations was similar: 15% for roentgen examination and 12% for colonoscopy.
We conclude: (1) Colonoscopy is a more sensitive method than roentgen examination for detecting small polyps of the colon, and (2) Performance of the two examinations may be comparable for demonstrating lesions 1.0 cm or larger in size.
Key wordsColonoscopy Barium enema examination Pneumocolon examination Colon polyps Polypoid colonic lesion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Williams C, Muto T: Examination of the whole colon with the fiberoptic colonoscope.Br Med J 2: 278–281, 1972Google Scholar
- 2.Wolff WI, Shinya H: Polypectomy via the fiberoptic colonoscope.N Engl J Med 288: 329–332, 1973Google Scholar
- 3.Dodds WJ, Scanlon GT, Shaw DK, Stewart ET, Youker JE, Metter GE: An evaluation of colon cleansing regimens.Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 128: 57–59, 1977Google Scholar
- 4.Teague RH, Salmon PF, Read AE: Fiberoptic examination of the colon: A review of 255 cases.Gut 14: 139–142, 1973Google Scholar
- 5.Coller JA, Corman ML: Diagnostic and therapeutic applications of fiberoptic colonoscopy.Geriatrics 29: 67–74, 1974Google Scholar
- 6.Loose HWC, Williams CB: Barium enema versus colonoscopy.Proc R Soc Med 67: 1033–1036, 1974Google Scholar
- 7.Norfleet RG: Colonoscopy experience in 100 examinations.Wis Med J 73: 66–68, 1974Google Scholar
- 8.Sugarbaker PH, Vineyard GC, Lewicki AM, Pinkus GS, Warhol MJ, Moore FD: Colonoscopy in the management of diseases of the colon and rectum.Surg Gynecol Obstet 139: 341–349, 1974Google Scholar
- 9.Williams CB, Hunt RH, Loose H, Riddell RH, Sakai Y, Swarbrick ET: Colonoscopy in the management of colon polyps.Br J Surg 61: 673–682, 1974Google Scholar
- 10.Wolff WI, Shinya H, Geffen A, Ozoktay S, DeBeer R: Comparison of colonoscopy and the contrast enema in five hundred patients with colorectal disease.Am J Surg 129: 181–186, 1975Google Scholar
- 11.Laufer I, Smith NCW, Mullens JE: The radiological demonstration of colorectal polyps undetected by endoscopy.Gastroenterology 70: 167–170, 1976Google Scholar