Bladder cancer diagnosis with CT urography: test characteristics and reasons for false-positive and false-negative results

Tony W. Trinh,Daniel I. Glazer,Cheryl A. Sadow,V. Anik Sahni,Nina L. Geller,Stuart G. Silverman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1249-6
IF: 2.4
2017-07-04
Abdominal Radiology
Abstract:PurposeTo determine test characteristics of CT urography for detecting bladder cancer in patients with hematuria and those undergoing surveillance, and to analyze reasons for false-positive and false-negative results.MethodsA HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved retrospective review of reports from 1623 CT urograms between 10/2010 and 12/31/2013 was performed. 710 examinations for hematuria or bladder cancer history were compared to cystoscopy performed within 6 months. Reference standard was surgical pathology or 1-year minimum clinical follow-up. False-positive and false-negative examinations were reviewed to determine reasons for errors.ResultsNinety-five bladder cancers were detected. CT urography accuracy: was 91.5% (650/710), sensitivity 86.3% (82/95), specificity 92.4% (568/615), positive predictive value 63.6% (82/129), and negative predictive value was 97.8% (568/581). Of 43 false positives, the majority of interpretation errors were due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (n = 12), trabeculated bladder (n = 9), and treatment changes (n = 8). Other causes include blood clots, mistaken normal anatomy, infectious/inflammatory changes, or had no cystoscopic correlate. Of 13 false negatives, 11 were due to technique, one to a large urinary residual, one to artifact. There were no errors in perception.ConclusionCT urography is an accurate test for diagnosing bladder cancer; however, in protocols relying predominantly on excretory phase images, overall sensitivity remains insufficient to obviate cystoscopy. Awareness of bladder cancer mimics may reduce false-positive results. Improvements in CTU technique may reduce false-negative results.
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
What problem does this paper attempt to address?