HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Alden M. Parsons Frank C. Detterbeck Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Parsons, A. M. Articles by Detterbeck, F. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Parsons, A. M. Articles by Detterbeck, F. C. Related Collections Lung - other Related Article

---

Original Articles: General Thoracic

Helical Computed Tomography Inaccuracy in the Detection of Pulmonary Metastases: Can It Be Improved?

^a Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
^b School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
^c Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
^d Division of Thoracic Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut

Accepted for publication June 25, 2007.

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Parsons, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of North Carolina, 3040 Burnett-Womack Bldg, CB #7065, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7065 (Email: alden_parsons{at}yahoo.com).

Background: In thoracic surgery, manual lung palpation for detection of pulmonary metastases during resection is the standard of care, despite improvements in computed tomography (CT) imaging. In our previous study based on chart review alone, the accuracy of helical CT in the detection of pulmonary metastases was surprisingly low, with a sensitivity of 78%. We hypothesized that this may be improved by scan interpretation with adequate clinical history and focused documentation of all pulmonary lesions, and may be influenced by the training of the reader.

Methods: Preoperative CT scans of 53 patients undergoing 60 cases of pulmonary metastasectomy at our center from 1996 to 2004 were retrospectively reviewed by a dedicated chest radiologist and a non–chest radiologist. Nodules detected on preoperative helical CT were compared with pathologically confirmed metastases.

Results: In 27 of 59 (46%) cases read by radiologist 1, and 27 of 58 (47%) cases read by radiologist 2, metastases found by lung palpation were not seen on preoperative CT. Preoperative CT was entirely correct (no missed metastases or false-positive lesions) in only 11 of 59 (19%) of cases read by radiologist 1, and 11 of 58 (19%) of cases read by radiologist 2.

Conclusions: Helical CT misses metastases in 46% to 47% of cases. Accuracy of preoperative CT scanning for detection of pulmonary metastases was not improved with the provision of clinical history to the reader, nor was it influenced by the interpreter’s training. A combined approach to pulmonary metastasectomy including preoperative and postoperative CT as well as manual lung palpation is necessary to render the patient disease-free.

Related Article

Invited commentary

Cameron D. Wright
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2007 84: 1836-1837. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. D. Wright Invited commentary Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2007; 84(6): 1836 - 1837. [Full Text] [PDF]