Colorectal Cancer: Performance and Evaluation for CT Colonography Screening- A Multicenter Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial.
Journal
Radiology
ISSN: 1527-1315
Titre abrégé: Radiology
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401260
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
16
2
2022
medline:
28
4
2022
entrez:
15
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Background Most radiologists reporting CT colonography (CTC) do not undergo compulsory performance accreditation, potentially lowering diagnostic sensitivity. Purpose To determine whether 1-day individualized training in CTC reporting improves diagnostic sensitivity of experienced radiologists for 6-mm or larger lesions, the durability of any improvement, and any associated factors. Materials and Methods This prospective, multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial was performed in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales between April 2017 and January 2020. CTC services were cluster randomized into intervention (1-day training plus feedback) or control (no training or feedback) arms. Radiologists in the intervention arm attended a 1-day workshop focusing on CTC reporting pitfalls with individualized feedback. Radiologists in the control group received no training. Sensitivity for 6-mm or larger lesions was tested at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months thereafter via interpretation of 10 CTC scans at each time point. The primary outcome was the mean difference in per-lesion sensitivity between arms at 1 month, analyzed using multilevel regression after adjustment for baseline sensitivity. Secondary outcomes included per-lesion sensitivity at 6- and 12-month follow-up, sensitivity for flat neoplasia, and effect of prior CTC experience. Results A total of 69 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention (31 clusters, 80 radiologists) or control (38 clusters, 59 radiologists) arm. Radiologists were experienced (median, 500-999 CTC scans interpreted) and reported CTC scans routinely (median, 151-200 scans per year). One-month sensitivity improved after intervention (66.4% [659 of 992]) compared with sensitivity in the control group (42.4% [278 of 655]; difference = 20.8%; 95% CI: 14.6, 27.0;
Identifiants
pubmed: 35166585
doi: 10.1148/radiol.211456
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02892721']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
361-370Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PDF-2017-10-081
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn