CT结肠镜与内镜联合检查结直肠癌的诊断率。

IF 1.6 Q4 ONCOLOGY
A Rajendiran, P Neupane, V Zapadia, S Biswas, R Kyriakides, M H Butt, M Simpson, A Hussain
{"title":"CT结肠镜与内镜联合检查结直肠癌的诊断率。","authors":"A Rajendiran, P Neupane, V Zapadia, S Biswas, R Kyriakides, M H Butt, M Simpson, A Hussain","doi":"10.1007/s12029-025-01216-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The number of urgent referrals for suspected colorectal cancer in the NHS is constantly on the rise placing significant strain on endoscopy services. Alternatives or adjuncts to colonoscopy are the need of the hour. CT colonography (CTC) is gaining popularity demonstrating comparable sensitivity albeit concerns regarding missed lesions especially in the anorectum. In theory, this can be overcome by combining flexible sigmoidoscopy with CTC, and this is still in practice in some centres in the UK. The UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (UK BCSP) guidelines however suggest that additional endoscopy is not required alongside CTC to improve diagnostic yield. This study primarily aims to determine the need to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy/endoscopy in conjunction with CTC, in a view to reduce the number of unwarranted endoscopic investigations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single tertiary centre analysis was performed from 2019 to 2022 comprising of symptomatic/high risk patients referred to the colorectal clinic on the 2-week wait pathway, patients under polyp/cancer surveillance and patients undergoing endoscopic investigations following inpatient admission. Findings on endoscopy were compared with those on CTC with significant findings being defined as polypoidal lesions ≥ 5 mm, benign and malignant. Classification matrices were generated for each outcome, and sensitivity analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 480 patients were included with a median age of 71 years and a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.02. The incidence of histologically proven malignancy was 30/480 (6.3%). The sensitivity of CTC for detection of malignancy in relation to histology was 93.3% (confidence interval (CI) 77.9%, 99.2%) while that for endoscopy was higher at 96.7% (CI 82.8%, 99.9%). For the detection of polyps ≥ 5 mm, the relative sensitivity and specificity of CTC with respect to endoscopy were 77.7% (CI 68.9%, 85.0%) and 98.9% (CI 97.3%, 99.7%). Overall, 2 cancers and 25 polyps were missed by CTC. In total, 70.3% of these missed lesions were in the transverse colon, descending and the sigmoid colon (left-sided lesions).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among patients undergoing investigation for suspected colorectal cancer, CTC demonstrated high sensitivity for malignancy but was less reliable than endoscopy for detecting significant polyps (≥ 5 mm). Our findings suggest that although CTC is effective as a standalone investigation, selective endoscopic assessment may still be necessary to optimise diagnostic yield.</p>","PeriodicalId":15895,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer","volume":"56 1","pages":"93"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Yield of Combining CT Colonoscopy and Endoscopy to Investigate Colorectal Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"A Rajendiran, P Neupane, V Zapadia, S Biswas, R Kyriakides, M H Butt, M Simpson, A Hussain\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12029-025-01216-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The number of urgent referrals for suspected colorectal cancer in the NHS is constantly on the rise placing significant strain on endoscopy services. Alternatives or adjuncts to colonoscopy are the need of the hour. CT colonography (CTC) is gaining popularity demonstrating comparable sensitivity albeit concerns regarding missed lesions especially in the anorectum. In theory, this can be overcome by combining flexible sigmoidoscopy with CTC, and this is still in practice in some centres in the UK. The UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (UK BCSP) guidelines however suggest that additional endoscopy is not required alongside CTC to improve diagnostic yield. This study primarily aims to determine the need to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy/endoscopy in conjunction with CTC, in a view to reduce the number of unwarranted endoscopic investigations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single tertiary centre analysis was performed from 2019 to 2022 comprising of symptomatic/high risk patients referred to the colorectal clinic on the 2-week wait pathway, patients under polyp/cancer surveillance and patients undergoing endoscopic investigations following inpatient admission. Findings on endoscopy were compared with those on CTC with significant findings being defined as polypoidal lesions ≥ 5 mm, benign and malignant. Classification matrices were generated for each outcome, and sensitivity analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 480 patients were included with a median age of 71 years and a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.02. The incidence of histologically proven malignancy was 30/480 (6.3%). The sensitivity of CTC for detection of malignancy in relation to histology was 93.3% (confidence interval (CI) 77.9%, 99.2%) while that for endoscopy was higher at 96.7% (CI 82.8%, 99.9%). For the detection of polyps ≥ 5 mm, the relative sensitivity and specificity of CTC with respect to endoscopy were 77.7% (CI 68.9%, 85.0%) and 98.9% (CI 97.3%, 99.7%). Overall, 2 cancers and 25 polyps were missed by CTC. In total, 70.3% of these missed lesions were in the transverse colon, descending and the sigmoid colon (left-sided lesions).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among patients undergoing investigation for suspected colorectal cancer, CTC demonstrated high sensitivity for malignancy but was less reliable than endoscopy for detecting significant polyps (≥ 5 mm). Our findings suggest that although CTC is effective as a standalone investigation, selective endoscopic assessment may still be necessary to optimise diagnostic yield.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15895,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"93\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-025-01216-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-025-01216-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:国家医疗服务体系中疑似结肠直肠癌的紧急转诊数量持续上升,给内窥镜检查服务带来了巨大压力。结肠镜检查的替代方法或辅助手段是当务之急。CT 结肠造影 (CTC) 的灵敏度与结肠镜不相上下,但令人担忧的是会漏检病灶,尤其是肛门直肠。从理论上讲,将柔性乙状结肠镜检查与 CTC 检查相结合可以克服这一问题,英国的一些中心仍在采用这种方法。然而,英国肠癌筛查计划(UK BCSP)指南建议,在进行 CTC 检查的同时无需进行额外的内镜检查,以提高诊断率。本研究的主要目的是确定是否需要在进行 CTC 的同时进行柔性乙状结肠镜/内镜检查,以减少不必要的内镜检查次数:从2019年到2022年,我们在一个三级中心进行了分析,分析对象包括通过2周等待路径转诊到结直肠诊所的有症状/高风险患者、接受息肉/癌症监测的患者以及住院后接受内镜检查的患者。将内窥镜检查结果与 CTC 检查结果进行比较,重要的检查结果被定义为息肉病变≥ 5 毫米、良性和恶性。为每种结果生成分类矩阵,并进行敏感性分析:共纳入 480 名患者,中位年龄为 71 岁,男女比例为 1:1.02。经组织学证实的恶性肿瘤发生率为 30/480(6.3%)。CTC 检测组织学恶性肿瘤的灵敏度为 93.3%(置信区间(CI)为 77.9%,99.2%),而内窥镜检查的灵敏度更高,为 96.7%(置信区间(CI)为 82.8%,99.9%)。在检测≥5 毫米的息肉方面,CTC 与内窥镜检查的相对敏感性和特异性分别为 77.7% (CI 68.9%, 85.0%) 和 98.9% (CI 97.3%, 99.7%)。总体而言,CTC 漏诊了 2 例癌症和 25 例息肉。在这些漏检病灶中,70.3%位于横结肠、降结肠和乙状结肠(左侧病变):结论:在接受疑似结直肠癌检查的患者中,CTC 对恶性肿瘤的敏感性较高,但在检测明显息肉(≥ 5 毫米)方面不如内窥镜检查可靠。我们的研究结果表明,虽然四氯化碳作为一种独立的检查方法很有效,但仍有必要进行选择性内窥镜评估,以优化诊断率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostic Yield of Combining CT Colonoscopy and Endoscopy to Investigate Colorectal Cancer.

Introduction: The number of urgent referrals for suspected colorectal cancer in the NHS is constantly on the rise placing significant strain on endoscopy services. Alternatives or adjuncts to colonoscopy are the need of the hour. CT colonography (CTC) is gaining popularity demonstrating comparable sensitivity albeit concerns regarding missed lesions especially in the anorectum. In theory, this can be overcome by combining flexible sigmoidoscopy with CTC, and this is still in practice in some centres in the UK. The UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (UK BCSP) guidelines however suggest that additional endoscopy is not required alongside CTC to improve diagnostic yield. This study primarily aims to determine the need to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy/endoscopy in conjunction with CTC, in a view to reduce the number of unwarranted endoscopic investigations.

Methods: A single tertiary centre analysis was performed from 2019 to 2022 comprising of symptomatic/high risk patients referred to the colorectal clinic on the 2-week wait pathway, patients under polyp/cancer surveillance and patients undergoing endoscopic investigations following inpatient admission. Findings on endoscopy were compared with those on CTC with significant findings being defined as polypoidal lesions ≥ 5 mm, benign and malignant. Classification matrices were generated for each outcome, and sensitivity analysis was performed.

Results: A total of 480 patients were included with a median age of 71 years and a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.02. The incidence of histologically proven malignancy was 30/480 (6.3%). The sensitivity of CTC for detection of malignancy in relation to histology was 93.3% (confidence interval (CI) 77.9%, 99.2%) while that for endoscopy was higher at 96.7% (CI 82.8%, 99.9%). For the detection of polyps ≥ 5 mm, the relative sensitivity and specificity of CTC with respect to endoscopy were 77.7% (CI 68.9%, 85.0%) and 98.9% (CI 97.3%, 99.7%). Overall, 2 cancers and 25 polyps were missed by CTC. In total, 70.3% of these missed lesions were in the transverse colon, descending and the sigmoid colon (left-sided lesions).

Conclusion: Among patients undergoing investigation for suspected colorectal cancer, CTC demonstrated high sensitivity for malignancy but was less reliable than endoscopy for detecting significant polyps (≥ 5 mm). Our findings suggest that although CTC is effective as a standalone investigation, selective endoscopic assessment may still be necessary to optimise diagnostic yield.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: The Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer is a multidisciplinary medium for the publication of novel research pertaining to cancers arising from the gastrointestinal tract.The journal is dedicated to the most rapid publication possible.The journal publishes papers in all relevant fields, emphasizing those studies that are helpful in understanding and treating cancers affecting the esophagus, stomach, liver, gallbladder and biliary tree, pancreas, small bowel, large bowel, rectum, and anus. In addition, the Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer publishes basic and translational scientific information from studies providing insight into the etiology and progression of cancers affecting these organs. New insights are provided from diverse areas of research such as studies exploring pre-neoplastic states, risk factors, epidemiology, genetics, preclinical therapeutics, surgery, radiation therapy, novel medical therapeutics, clinical trials, and outcome studies.In addition to reports of original clinical and experimental studies, the journal also publishes: case reports, state-of-the-art reviews on topics of immediate interest or importance; invited articles analyzing particular areas of pancreatic research and knowledge; perspectives in which critical evaluation and conflicting opinions about current topics may be expressed; meeting highlights that summarize important points presented at recent meetings; abstracts of symposia and conferences; book reviews; hypotheses; Letters to the Editors; and other items of special interest, including:Complex Cases in GI Oncology:  This is a new initiative to provide a forum to review and discuss the history and management of complex and involved gastrointestinal oncology cases. The format will be similar to a teaching case conference where a case vignette is presented and is followed by a series of questions and discussion points. A brief reference list supporting the points made in discussion would be expected.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信