Pseudomelanosis of stomach, duodenum, and jejunum.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Aged↗
Biomedical subjects
Leonard B Weinstock
Publications and source records attributed to Leonard B Weinstock.
Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine patient pre-examination expectations and postexamination appraisals for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy and bowel preparation. METHODS: Prospective evaluation of 120 patients at defined risk for colorectal neoplasia was performed with CT colonography followed by colonoscopy on the same day. Subjects were stratified by age and sex (67 women and 53 men) and were randomized to receive either manual air (n = 61) or CO(2) (n = 59) insufflation during CT colonography. Patients' expectations were assessed just before the two examinations, and appraisals were assessed 2 to 3 days afterward regarding pain/discomfort, embarrassment, difficulty, overall assessment, preference for future testing, and bowel preparation. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in appraisals of manual air versus CO(2) insufflation techniques. For both CT colonography and colonoscopy, patients' appraisals after the procedure were significantly more positive than prior expectations. Patients expressed more favorable appraisals of colonoscopy for pain (p < 0.001) and embarrassment (p < 0.001), with most responses being "none" to "a little" for both examinations. Overall appraisals of the tests were favorable and similar between CT and colonoscopy: patients mainly expressed "not unpleasant" to "a little unpleasant" (95%, 114/120 for both examinations). Overall, appraisal of the bowel preparation was the most negative. Preferences for future testing were more favorable toward CT: of the patients, 58% (69/120) preferred CT, 14% (17/120) preferred colonoscopy, and 28% (34/120) had no preference. CONCLUSIONS: Overall appraisals were similar and positive for both CT colonography and colonoscopy, with less favorable appraisals of the bowel preparation. Most patients stated that they would prefer CT for future evaluation.
Adult↗
CT colonography: multiobserver diagnostic performance.
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate multiobserver diagnostic performance and reader agreement for colorectal polyp detection in a well-characterized cohort of patients with increased number of polyps, compared with an average-risk patient, with colonoscopy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 70 patients suspected of having polyps was examined with spiral computed tomographic (CT) colonography, with colonoscopy performed the same day. After air insufflation per rectum, supine and prone images were obtained with single-detector row CT (5-mm collimation, 8-mm table increment, 2-mm reconstruction interval). Images were analyzed independently by four experienced abdominal radiologists using two-dimensional multiplanar reformation followed by selective use of three-dimensional endoscopic volume-rendered images. Data were analyzed both per polyp and per patient. RESULTS: Analysis per polyp demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.68 for lesions 10 mm or larger (n = 40), with 75% agreement among the four readers. Analysis per patient demonstrated improved detection and agreement, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.88 for patients with polyps or cancers 10 mm or larger (n = 28), with 94% agreement. When sensitivity and receiver operating characteristic analyses were analyzed per polyp size threshold, results among readers converged and peaked at polyp diameters of approximately 10 mm. CONCLUSION: In this patient cohort, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement with single-detector row CT colonography was sufficient for detection of patients with lesions 10 mm or larger, with more variable results for smaller polyps.
Adult↗