Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 11/2019

Open Access 01-11-2019 | Fatigue | Gastrointestinal

Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?

Authors: Anu E. Obaro, Andrew A. Plumb, Michael P. North, Steve Halligan, David N. Burling

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 11/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan.

Methods

Retrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiology Information System data for CTC examinations from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015. For each examination, we determined how many prior CTCs had been interpreted by the reporting radiologist on that day and how long radiologists spent on interpretation. For each radiologist, we calculated their referral rate (proportion deemed positive for 6 mm+ polyp/cancer), positive predictive value (PPV) and endoscopic/surgically proven polyp detection rate (PDR). We also calculated the mean time each radiologist spent interpreting normal studies (“negative interpretation time”). We used multilevel logistic regression to investigate the relationship between the number of scans reported each day, negative interpretation time and referral rate, PPV and PDR.

Results

Five thousand one hundred ninety-one scans were interpreted by seven radiologists; 892 (17.2%) were reported as positive, and 534 (10.3%) had polyps confirmed. Both referral rate and PDR reduced as more CTCs were reported on a given day (p < 0.001), the odds reducing by 7% for each successive CTC interpreted. Radiologists reporting more slowly than their colleagues detected more polyps (p = 0.028), with each 16% increase in interpretation time associated with a 1% increase in PDR. PPV was unaffected.

Conclusions

Reporting multiple CTCs on a given day and rapid CTC interpretation are associated with decreased polyp detection. Radiologists should be protected from requirements to report too many CTCs or too quickly.

Key Points

• CT colonography services should protect radiologists from a need to report too fast (> 20 min per case) or for too long (> 4 cases consecutively without a break).
• Professional bodies should consider introducing a target minimum interpretation time for CT colonography examinations as a quality marker.
Literature
4.
go back to reference Edwards AJ, Ricketts C, Dubbins PA, Roobottom CA, Wells IP (2003) The effect of reporting speed on plain film reporting errors. Clin Radiol 58(12):971–979CrossRef Edwards AJ, Ricketts C, Dubbins PA, Roobottom CA, Wells IP (2003) The effect of reporting speed on plain film reporting errors. Clin Radiol 58(12):971–979CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Sokolovskaya E, Shinde T, Ruchman RB et al (2015) The effect of faster reporting speed for imaging studies on the number of misses and interpretation errors: a pilot study. J Am Coll Radiol 12(7):683–688CrossRef Sokolovskaya E, Shinde T, Ruchman RB et al (2015) The effect of faster reporting speed for imaging studies on the number of misses and interpretation errors: a pilot study. J Am Coll Radiol 12(7):683–688CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349(23):2191–2200CrossRef Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349(23):2191–2200CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Johnson CD, Chen M-H, Toledano AY et al (2008) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359(12):1207–1217CrossRef Johnson CD, Chen M-H, Toledano AY et al (2008) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359(12):1207–1217CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K et al (2013) Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 381(9873):1194–1202CrossRef Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K et al (2013) Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 381(9873):1194–1202CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Halligan S, Wooldrage K, Dadswell E et al (2013) Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 381(9873):1185–1193CrossRef Halligan S, Wooldrage K, Dadswell E et al (2013) Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 381(9873):1185–1193CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS, Kenner NM (2005) Cognitive psychology: rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature 435(7041):439–440CrossRef Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS, Kenner NM (2005) Cognitive psychology: rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature 435(7041):439–440CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Plumb AA, Obaro A, Fanshawe T et al (2017) Prevalence and risk factors for post-investigation colorectal cancer (“interval cancer”) after computed tomographic colonography: protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev 6(1):36CrossRef Plumb AA, Obaro A, Fanshawe T et al (2017) Prevalence and risk factors for post-investigation colorectal cancer (“interval cancer”) after computed tomographic colonography: protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev 6(1):36CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL (2006) Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 355(24):2533–2541CrossRef Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL (2006) Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 355(24):2533–2541CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Lee TJW, Blanks RG, Rees CJ et al (2013) Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 45(1):20–26PubMed Lee TJW, Blanks RG, Rees CJ et al (2013) Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 45(1):20–26PubMed
14.
go back to reference Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR et al (2015) Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 149(4):952–957CrossRef Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR et al (2015) Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 149(4):952–957CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Sanaka MR, Deepinder F, Thota PN, Lopez R, Burke CA (2009) Adenomas are detected more often in morning than in afternoon colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 104(7):1659–1664 quiz 65CrossRef Sanaka MR, Deepinder F, Thota PN, Lopez R, Burke CA (2009) Adenomas are detected more often in morning than in afternoon colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 104(7):1659–1664 quiz 65CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kaneshiro M, Ho A, Chan M, Cohen H, Spiegel BMR (2010) Colonoscopy yields fewer polyps as the day progresses despite using social influence theory to reverse the trend. Gastrointest Endosc 72(6):1233–1240CrossRef Kaneshiro M, Ho A, Chan M, Cohen H, Spiegel BMR (2010) Colonoscopy yields fewer polyps as the day progresses despite using social influence theory to reverse the trend. Gastrointest Endosc 72(6):1233–1240CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Wilson E (1927) Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22(158):209–212 Wilson E (1927) Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22(158):209–212
19.
go back to reference Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R et al (2018) World endoscopy organization consensus statements on post-colonoscopy and post-imaging colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 155(3):909–25 e3CrossRef Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R et al (2018) World endoscopy organization consensus statements on post-colonoscopy and post-imaging colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 155(3):909–25 e3CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Obaro AE, Plumb AA, Fanshawe TR et al (2018) Post-imaging colorectal cancer or interval cancer rates after CT colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 3(5):326–336CrossRef Obaro AE, Plumb AA, Fanshawe TR et al (2018) Post-imaging colorectal cancer or interval cancer rates after CT colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 3(5):326–336CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Plumb AA, Phillips P, Spence G et al (2017) Increasing navigation speed at endoluminal CT colonography reduces colonic visualization and polyp identification. Radiology 284(2):413–422CrossRef Plumb AA, Phillips P, Spence G et al (2017) Increasing navigation speed at endoluminal CT colonography reduces colonic visualization and polyp identification. Radiology 284(2):413–422CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD et al (2016) UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut 65(12):1923–1929CrossRef Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD et al (2016) UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut 65(12):1923–1929CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M et al (2017) Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. Endoscopy 49(4):378–397CrossRef Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M et al (2017) Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. Endoscopy 49(4):378–397CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J et al (2015) Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 110(1):72–90CrossRef Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J et al (2015) Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 110(1):72–90CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Leffler DA, Kheraj R, Bhansali A et al (2012) Adenoma detection rates vary minimally with time of day and case rank: a prospective study of 2139 first screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 75(3):554–560CrossRef Leffler DA, Kheraj R, Bhansali A et al (2012) Adenoma detection rates vary minimally with time of day and case rank: a prospective study of 2139 first screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 75(3):554–560CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Lurix E, Hernandez AV, Thoma M, Castro F (2012) Adenoma detection rate is not influenced by full-day blocks, time, or modified queue position. Gastrointest Endosc 75(4):827–834CrossRef Lurix E, Hernandez AV, Thoma M, Castro F (2012) Adenoma detection rate is not influenced by full-day blocks, time, or modified queue position. Gastrointest Endosc 75(4):827–834CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?
Authors
Anu E. Obaro
Andrew A. Plumb
Michael P. North
Steve Halligan
David N. Burling
Publication date
01-11-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword
Fatigue
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 11/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06175-y

Other articles of this Issue 11/2019

European Radiology 11/2019 Go to the issue