Inside "Detection and Diagnosis":

@CancerQuest on Twitter:

Related to this page:

Test your knowledge on Detection and Diagnosis

Was this page helpful? | What did you like most? How can we make it better?

CancerQuest > Introduction to Patient Information > Introduction to Cancer Detection and Diagnosis > Colonoscopy: Introduction > Conventional vs. Virtual Colonoscopy

Conventional vs. Virtual Colonoscopy

A 2003 study compared the performance of CT virtual colonoscopy with conventional optical colonoscopy in 1233 asymptomatic adults (mean age 57.8). The results are summarized below:

 

Polyp diameter 6 mm or more:

Polyp diameter 10 mm or more:
• Conventional Colonoscopy: 87.5% sensitivity
• Virtual Colonoscopy: 93.8% sensitivity
Polyp diameter 8 mm or more:
• Conventional Colonoscopy: 91.5% sensitivity
• Virtual Colonoscopy: 93.9% sensitivity
• Conventional Colonoscopy: 92.3% sensitivity
• Virtual Colonoscopy: 88.7% sensitivity

 

The specificity of virtual colonoscopy was 96% for polyps at least 10mm in diameter, 92.2% for polyps at least 8mm in diameter, and 79.6% for polyps at least 6mm in diameter. Two of the polyps detected were malignant, both of which were detected by virtual colonoscopy. However, one of these was missed by optical colonoscopy.⁽¹⁾ Watch a video about sensitivity and specificity in medical testing.

The researchers concluded that CT virtual colonoscopy is a useful, accurate method for screening of colorectal cancer in average-risk adults. Research is still being conducted to evaluate the utility of this technique in colon cancer screening.⁽²⁾⁽³⁾

References for this page:

1. Pickhardt PJ, et al. "Computed Tomographic Virtual Colonoscopy to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia in Asymptomatic Adults." N Engl J Med. 2003 Dec 4;349(23):2191-200. Epub 2003 Dec 1. [PUBMED]
2. Lin, OS. 2010. Computed tomographic colonography: hope or hype? World J Gastroenterol. Feb 28;16(8):915-20. [PUBMED]
3. LaBundy J, Prather CM. Choices in colorectal cancer screening: a review of current screening modalities and recommendations. Mo Med. 2009. Sep-Oct;106(5):351-5. [PUBMED]