Colorectal carcinoma missed on double contrast barium enema study: a problem in perception

A total of 31 cases of primary colorectal carcinoma missed on double contrast barium enema studies over a 5 year period (1976-1980) were collected from six institutions, and the causes of error reviewed. The errors were purely perceptive in 52%, due to a combination of perceptive and technical factors in 32%, and interpretative in 6%. The most common perceptive mistakes were failure to recognize a filling defect in the barium pool and failure to detect the tumor en face in double contrast study. Five cases were only detected at the time of the study as a result of double reading. Ten percent of the lesions could not be seen in retrospect, and therefore can be attributed to failure of the technique itself. At four of the institutions, the double contrast barium enema study missed 11 (6%) of 197 primary colorectal carcinomas. The lesion was invisible in retrospect in only two (1%) of these 197 studies, indicating that the double contrast examination is potentially highly sensitive for detecting colorectal carcinoma. The mainly perceptive nature of the errors indicates the need for more careful viewing of double contrast barium enemas. Familiarity with the different appearances of colorectal carcinoma on double contrast study, together with double-reading by the same or different observers, should reduce the incidence of missed lesions.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Levin, D. A. Lieberman, B. McFarland, R. A. Smith, D. Brooks, K. S. Andrews, C. Dash, F. M. Giardiello, S. Glick, T. R. Levin, et al. Screening and Surveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Adenomatous Polyps, 2008: A Joint Guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology CA Cancer J Clin, May 1, 2008; 58(3): 130 - 160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. M. Thompson, W. L. Foster, E. K. Paulson, D. Niedzwiecki, V. H. S. Low, L. B. Fulford, B. W. Broomer, L. Sanders, and D. C. Rockey Causes of Errors in Polyp Detection at Air-Contrast Barium Enema Examination Radiology, April 1, 2006; 239(1): 139 - 148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. L. Canon, J. K. Smith, D. E. Morgan, B. C. Jones, S. C. Fell, P. J. Kenney, D. Ferrante, M. E. Lockhart, A. O. Westfall, and R. E. Koehler Double Reading of Barium Enemas: Is It Necessary? Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2003; 181(6): 1607 - 1610. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Goldshein and S. Somers Single-Contrast Versus Double-Contrast Barium Enema Examinations Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2001; 177 (5): 1217 - 1218. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E. Seppala The Double-Contrast Barium Enema Examination Radiology, October 1, 2001; 221(1): 273 - 274. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Levine, S. E. Rubesin, I. Laufer, and H. Herlinger Diagnosis of Colorectal Neoplasms at Double-Contrast Barium Enema Examination Radiology, July 1, 2000; 216(1): 11 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				S. Glick Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Review of the Issues and a Comparison with Other Screening Alternatives Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2000; 174(6): 1529 - 1537. [Full Text]

				G. W. Stevenson 1998 RSNA Annual Oration in Diagnostic Radiology : Colorectal Cancer Imaging: A Challenge for Radiologists Radiology, March 1, 2000; 214(3): 615 - 621. [Full Text]

				W. L. England, J. J. Halls, and V. B. Hunt Strategies for Screening for Colorectal Carcinoma Med Decis Making, February 1, 1989; 9(1): 3 - 13. [Abstract] [PDF]