Consistent and quality reporting of computer tomography colonography (CTC) results enables better evaluation of performance in both research and clinical settings. A thorough description of research methodologies and results allows the synthesis of data to create meta-analyses. Quality clinical reports not only provide useful information for the clinicians, but also enable retrospective analysis for internal audit and quality control purposes. In the near future, programs performing CTC may be subject to performance-based evaluations for accreditation purposes; standardized clinical reporting based on data-supported and expert guidelines will likely facilitate this process. Clinicians and authors should report information regarding the following categories: patient cohort and relevant history, bowel preparation and performance of the examination, examination interpretation, lesion characteristics (size, location, morphology, histology), and diagnostic performance. This chapter will discuss guidelines and factors regarding all these categories that hopefully will lead to better and more uniform CTC reporting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Dachman A (2003) Sessile polyps. In: Dachman A (ed) Atlas of virtual colonoscopy. Springer, New York, pp 109–110
Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC III et al (1999) A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 341:1496–1503
Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ (2007) Characteristics of advanced adenomas detected at CT colonographic screening: implications for appropriate polyp size thresholds for polypectomy versus surveillance. AJR 188:940–944
Macari M, Bini EJ, Xue X et al (2002) Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonos-copy for detection. Radiology 224:383–392
Park SH, Ha HK, Kim MJ et al (2005) False-negative results at multi-detector row CT colonography: multivariate analysis of causes for missed lesions. Radiology 235:495–502
Park SH, Choi EK, Lee SS et al (2007) Polyp measurement reliability, accuracy, and discrepancy: optical colonoscopy versus CT colonography with pig colonic specimens. Radiology 244:157–164
Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed tomo-graphic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200
Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Nugent PA et al (2004a) The effect of diagnostic confidence on the probability of optical colono-scopic confirmation of potential polyps detected on CT colonography: prospective assessment in 1,339 asymptomatic adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1661–1665
Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA et al (2004b) Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 141:352–359
Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, McFarland EG et al (2005) Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays. Radiology 236:872–878
Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A et al (2007) Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer 109:2213–2221
Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A et al (2008) Small and diminutive polyps detected at screening CT colonography: a decision analysis for referral to colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:136–144
Soetikno RM, Kaltenbach T, Rouse RV et al (2008) Prevalence of nonpolypoid (flat and depressed) colorectal neoplasms in asymptomatic and symptomatic adults. JAMA 299:1027–1035
Swets JA (1992) The science of choosing the right decision threshold in high-stakes diagnostics. Am Psychol 47:522–532
Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, Working Group on Virtual Colonoscopy et al (2005) CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 236:3–9
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dachman, A.H., Obara, P.R., Zalis, M.E. (2010). Quality and Consistency in Reporting CT Colonography. In: Lefere, P., Gryspeerdt, S. (eds) Virtual Colonoscopy. Medical Radiology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79886-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79886-6_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-79879-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-79886-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)