» Articles » PMID: 23765729

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of CT Colonography Interpreted by Radiologists and Radiographers

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty Radiology
Date 2013 Jun 15
PMID 23765729
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To compare computed tomographic colonography (CTC) performance of four trained radiographers with the CTC performance of two experienced radiologists.

Methods: Four radiographers and two radiologists interpreted 87 cases with 40 polyps ≥6 mm. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were assessed on a per-patient basis. On a per-polyp basis, sensitivity was calculated according to the respective size categories (polyps ≥6 mm as well as polyps ≥10 mm).

Results: Overall per-patient sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm was 76.2 % (95 % CI 61.4-91.0) and 76.2 % (95 % CI 61.7-90.6), for the radiographers and radiologists, respectively. Overall per-patient specificity for polyps ≥6 mm were 81.4 % (95 % CI 73.7-89.2) and 81.1 % (95 % CI 73.8-88.3) for the radiographers and the radiologists, respectively. For the radiographers, overall per-polyp sensitivity was 60.3 % (95 % CI 50.3-70.3) and 60.7 % (95 % CI 42.2-79.2) for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, respectively. For the radiologists, overall per polyp sensitivity was 59.2 % (95 % CI 46.4-72.0) and 69.0 % (95 % CI 48.1-89.6) for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, respectively.

Conclusion: Radiographers with training in CT colonographic evaluation achieved sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection comparable with that of experienced radiologists.

Main Messages: • The diagnostic accuracy of trained radiographers was comparable to that of experienced radiologists. • The use of radiographers in reading CTC examinations is acceptable, however radiologists would still be necessary for the evaluation of extracolonic findings. • Skilled non-radiologists may play a vital role as a second reader of intraluminal findings or by performing quality control of examinations before patient dismissal.

Citing Articles

Specific visual expertise reduces susceptibility to visual illusions.

Wincza R, Hartley C, Donovan T, Linkenauger S, Crawford T, Griffiths D Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):5948.

PMID: 40075124 PMC: 11904176. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-88178-y.


Does radiography advanced practice improve patient outcomes and health service quality? A systematic review.

Hardy M, Johnson L, Sharples R, Boynes S, Irving D Br J Radiol. 2016; 89(1062):20151066.

PMID: 27008104 PMC: 5258171. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20151066.

References
1.
Levin B, Lieberman D, McFarland B, Andrews K, Brooks D, Bond J . Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008; 134(5):1570-95. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.002. View

2.
Johnson C, Chen M, Toledano A, Heiken J, Dachman A, Kuo M . Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(12):1207-17. PMC: 2654614. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0800996. View

3.
Cotton P, Durkalski V, Pineau B, Palesch Y, Mauldin P, Hoffman B . Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA. 2004; 291(14):1713-9. DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.14.1713. View

4.
Halligan S, Wooldrage K, Dadswell E, Kralj-Hans I, Von Wagner C, Edwards R . Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2013; 381(9873):1185-93. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62124-2. View

5.
Jensch S, van Gelder R, Florie J, Thomassen-de Graaf M, Lobe J, Bossuyt P . Performance of radiographers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 188(3):W249-55. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.06.0451. View