Mal-positioned nasogastric feeding tubes: are medical students safe to identify them?

OBJECTIVES: Nasogastric tube (NGT) placement is listed against Clinical Imaging in the upcoming Medical Licensing Assessment-compulsory for every graduating UK medical student from 2025. This study aims to establish the ability of medical students to correctly identify the position of an NGT on Chest X-ray (CXR) and to evaluate a learning tool to improve student outcome in this area. METHODS: Fourth-year (MB4) and fifth-year (MB5) medical students were invited to view 20 CXRs with 14 correctly sited and 6 mal-positioned NGT. MB5 students (Intervention) were exposed to an online interactive learning tool, with MB4 students kept as control. One week later, both groups of students were invited to view 20 more CXRs for NGT placement. RESULTS: Only 12 (4.8%) of 249 MB5 students and 5 (3.1%) of 161 MB4 students correctly identified all the NGTs on CXRs. The number of students misidentifying 1 or more mal-positioned NGT as "safe to feed" was 129 (51.8%) for MB5 and 76 (47.2%) for MB4 students. This improved significantly (P < .001) following exposure to the learning tool with 58% scoring all CXRs correctly, while 28% scored 1 or more mal-positioned NGT incorrectly. Students struggled to determine if the NGT tip had adequately passed into the stomach. However, they failed to identify an NG tube in the lung ("never event") in just one out of 1,108 opportunities. CONCLUSION: Medical students' ability to determine if the NGT was in the stomach remains suboptimal despite exposure to over 60 CXRs. Feeding NGT should be formally reported before use. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first attempt at quantifying graduating medical students', and by inference junior doctors', competence in safely identifying misplaced nasogastric feeding tubes. An online, experiential learning resource significantly improved their ability.

Training in Computed Tomographic Colonography Interpretation: Recommendations for Best Practice.

The value of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as a sensitive diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer is well established. However, there is lack of consensus in the best way to achieve expertise in interpreting these studies. In this review we discuss the value of CTC training, accreditation and performance monitoring; the qualities of good CTC interpretation training, and specific training cases with associated learning points.

Effectiveness of Training in CT Colonography Interpretation: Review of Current Literature.

International guidance recommends that readers be specifically trained before embarking on independent interpretation of CT colonography (CTC) examinations. Systematic comparison of both international training requirements and the effectiveness of CTC training is lacking in the published literature. Therefore, we identified available international training standards for CTC and performed a review of studies published in the last 20 years to assess the impact of CTC interpretation training on reader diagnostic accuracy. A wide variation in training requirements was observed. Studies of the effectiveness of CTC reader training were heterogenous in methodology, with large variation in sample size and the type of training administered. Although training in CTC interpretation improves reader sensitivity overall, it has varying impact on specificity. Consensus agreement on the best way to train and assess readers in CTC interpretation may lead to lasting improvements in reader performance.

Colorectal Cancer: Performance and Evaluation for CT Colonography Screening- A Multicenter Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial.

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; P < .001). Improvements were maintained at 6 (66.4% [572 of 861] vs 50.5% [283 of 560]; difference = 13.0%; 95% CI: 7.4, 18.5; P < .001) and 12 (63.7% [310 of 487] vs 44.4% [187 of 421]; difference = 16.7%; 95% CI: 10.3, 23.1; P < .001) months. This beneficial effect applied to flat lesions (difference = 22.7%; 95% CI: 15.5, 29.9; P < .001) and was independent of career experience (≥1500 CTC scans: odds ratio = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.36; P = .22). Conclusion For radiologists evaluating CT colonography studies, a 1-day training intervention yielded sustained improvement in detection of clinically relevant colorectal neoplasia, independent of previous career experience. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02892721 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Pickhardt in this issue. An earlier incorrect version appeared online and in print. This article was corrected on February 28, 2022.

Vascularity of Intra-testicular Lesions: Inter-observer Variation in the Assessment of Non-neoplastic Versus Neoplastic Abnormalities After Vascular Enhancement With Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound.

The aim of this study is to assess the additional benefit of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) over conventional ultrasonography (US) in identifying intra-testicular abnormalities among observers of different experiences. In this study, 91 focal testicular lesions (46 neoplastic, 45 non-neoplastic) imaged with gray-scale US/Doppler US and CEUS were classified using a 5-point scale. Three experienced and four inexperienced observers rated each lesion using gray-scale/color Doppler US alone and then with the addition of CEUS. Improved diagnostic specificity and accuracy with the addition of CEUS was observed for both experienced (specificity: 71.1% vs. 59.3%, p = 0.005; accuracy: 83.5% vs. 76.9%, p = 0.003) and inexperienced observers (specificity: 75.6% vs. 51.7%, p = 0.005; accuracy: 80.2% vs. 72.0%, p < 0.001). Significant inter-observer variability between the experienced and inexperienced observers when assessing conventional US alone was eliminated with the addition of CEUS. CEUS improves diagnostic accuracy of focal intra-testicular lesions for both experienced and inexperienced observers and reduces inter-observer variability in inexperienced operators.

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

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.

Colon cancer screening with CT colonography: logistics, cost-effectiveness, efficiency and progress.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality can be significantly reduced by population screening. Several different screening methods are currently in use, and this review focuses specifically on the imaging technique computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The challenges and logistics of CTC screening, as well as the importance of test accuracy, uptake, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness will be discussed. With comparable advanced adenoma detection rates to colonoscopy (the most commonly used whole-colon investigation), CTC is a less-invasive alternative, requiring less laxative, and with the potential benefit that it permits assessment of extra colonic structures. Three large-scale European trials have contributed valuable evidence supporting the use of CTC in population screening, and highlight the importance of selecting appropriate clinical management pathways based on initial CTC findings. Future research into CTC-screening will likely focus on radiologist training and CTC quality assurance, with identification of evidence-based key performance indicators that are associated with clinically-relevant outcomes such as the incidence of post-test interval cancers (CRC occurring after a presumed negative CTC). In comparison to other CRC screening techniques, CTC offers a safe and accurate option that is particularly useful when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses which evaluate referral thresholds, the impact of extra-colonic findings and real-world uptake will provide useful information regarding the feasibility of future CTC population screening.

Post-imaging colorectal cancer or interval cancer rates after CT colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: CT colonography is highly sensitive for colorectal cancer, but interval or post-imaging colorectal cancer rates (diagnosis of cancer after initial negative CT colonography) are unknown, as are their underlying causes. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of post-CT colonography and post-imaging colorectal cancer rates and causes to address this gap in understanding. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomised, cohort, cross-sectional, or case-control studies published between Jan 1, 1994, and Feb 28, 2017, using CT colonography done according to international consensus standards with the aim of detecting cancer or polyps, and reporting post-imaging colorectal cancer rates or sufficient data to allow their calculation. We excluded studies in which all CT colonographies were done because of incomplete colonoscopy or if CT colonography was done with knowledge of colonoscopy findings. We contacted authors of component studies for additional data where necessary for retrospective CT colonography image review and causes for each post-imaging colorectal cancer. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the study reports. Our primary outcome was prevalence of post-imaging colorectal cancer 36 months after CT colonography. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled post-imaging colorectal cancer rates, expressed using the total number of cancers and total number of CT colonographies as denominators, and per 1000 person-years. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016042437. FINDINGS: 2977 articles were screened and 12 studies were eligible for analysis. These studies reported data for 19 867 patients (aged 18-96 years; of 11 590 with sex data available, 6532 [56%] were female) between March, 2002, and May, 2015. At a mean of 34 months' follow-up (range 3-128·4 months), CT colonography detected 643 colorectal cancers. 29 post-imaging colorectal cancers were subsequently diagnosed. The pooled post-imaging colorectal cancer rate was 4·42 (95% CI 3·03-6·42) per 100 cancers detected, corresponding to 1·61 (1·11-2·33) post-imaging colorectal cancers per 1000 CT colonographies or 0·64 (0·44-0·92) post-imaging colorectal cancers per 1000 person-years. Heterogeneity was low (I2=0%). 17 (61%) of 28 post-imaging colorectal cancers were attributable to perceptual error and were visible in retrospect. INTERPRETATION: CT colonography does not lead to an excess of post-test cancers relative to colonoscopy within 3-5 years, and the low 5-year post-imaging colorectal cancer rate confirms that the recommended screening interval of 5 years is safe. Since most post-imaging colorectal cancers arise from perceptual errors, radiologist training and quality assurance could help to reduce post-imaging colorectal cancer rates. FUNDING: St Mark's Hospital Foundation and the UK National Institute for Health Research via the UCL/UCLH Biomedical Research Centre.

Prevalence and risk factors for post-investigation colorectal cancer ("interval cancer") after computed tomographic colonography: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and important disease. There are different tests for diagnosis, one of which is computed tomographic colonography (CTC). No test is perfect, and patients with normal CTC may subsequently develop CRC (either because it was overlooked originally, or because it has developed in the interim). This is termed post-investigation colorectal cancer (PICRC) or "interval cancer". How frequently this occurs after CTC is not known. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to use the primary literature to estimate the PICRC rate after CTC, and explore associated factors. METHODS: Primary studies reporting post-investigation colorectal cancer (PICRC) rates after CTC will be identified from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases. Peer-reviewed studies published after 1994 (the year CTC was introduced) will be included and the rate of PICRC within 36 months of CTC recorded. Data will be extracted from selected studies for a random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity, risk of bias and publication bias will be assessed, and exploratory analysis will examine factors associated with higher PICRC rates in the literature. CONCLUSION: PICRC rates are the ultimate benchmark of diagnostic quality for colonic investigations. This systematic review and meta-analysis will identify and synthesise evidence to determine PICRC rates after CTC and explore factors that may contribute to higher rates. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (registration number CRD42016042437 ).