Detection of Colorectal Carcinoma on Double Contrast Barium Enema When Double Reporting Is Routinely Performed: An Audit of Current Practice

PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity of double contrast barium enema (DCBE) in the detection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) when double reporting is routinely performed. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Over a 1-year period all patients with a diagnosis of CRC within a large teaching hospital were identified....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical radiology 2002-03, Vol.57 (3), p.184-187
Main Authors: Leslie, A., Virjee, J.P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
barium enema examination, colon neoplasm, gastrointestinal tract
Barium Sulfate
Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Contrast Media
Diagnostic Errors
Enema
Female
Humans
Male
Medical Audit
Middle Aged
Radiography
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity of double contrast barium enema (DCBE) in the detection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) when double reporting is routinely performed. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Over a 1-year period all patients with a diagnosis of CRC within a large teaching hospital were identified. Using computer records, any patient with CRC who had had a DCBE within 5 years of diagnosis was identified. During this time period all DCBE were double reported by the radiographer or radiology trainee who performed the enema and by a consultant radiologist specializing in gastrointestinal radiology. RESULTS: Over the 1-year period 169 patients were identified with a diagnosis of CRC. Seventy patients had had a DCBE within the preceding 5 years. Sixty-four patients had had CRC diagnosed on the DCBE. One patient had a sessile polyp diagnosed, which was removed at colonoscopy and found to be an invasive adenocarcinoma. In five cases (7%) the CRC was not diagnosed on DCBE. In three cases the lesions could be seen retrospectively, in one case the lesion could not be seen and in one case the examination had been incomplete. CONCLUSION: In our series the miss-rate for CRC was 7%. Previous studies have shown miss-rates of 15–24%. These studies have not routinely employed double reporting. Our results suggest that double reporting of DCBE significantly reduces the miss-rate and that this reduction is due to fewer perceptive errors. Leslie, A. and Virjee, J. P. (2002). Clinical Radiology57, 184–187.
ISSN:0009-9260
1365-229X
DOI:10.1053/crad.2001.0832