Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 3/2011

01-03-2011 | Gastrointestinal

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and interpretation times for a standard and an advanced 3D visualisation technique in CT colonography

Authors: Thomas Mang, Frank T. Kolligs, Claus Schaefer, Maxmilian F. Reiser, Anno Graser

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 3/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of a standard bi-directional, three-dimensional (3D) CT colonography (CTC) fly-through (standard view, SV) with a unidirectional, 3D unfolding technique (panoramic view, PV).

Methods

150 consecutive endoscopically-validated CTC patient datasets were retrospectively reviewed twice by two expert radiologists: first, with bidirectional SV, second, after 6–15 months, with unidirectional PV. Per-polyp sensitivities, percentage of visualised colonic mucosa, and reading times were calculated for both 3D visualisations. Results were tested for statistical significance by equivalence analysis for paired proportions and Student’s paired t-test.

Results

In 81 patients, 236 polyps (101 adenomas, 135 non-adenomas) were detected. Sensitivities for polyps ≤5 mm, 6–9 mm and ≥10 mm were 60.1% (113/188), 92.9% (26/28) and 95.0% (19/20) with bidirectional SV, and 60.6% (114/188), 96.4% (27/28) and 95.0% (19/20) with unidirectional PV. Overall sensitivity for adenomas was 86.1% and 84.2% for SV and PV. Both methods provided equivalent polyp detection, with an equivalence limit set at 5%. PV and SV visualised 98.9 ± 1.1% (97.0–99.9%) and 96.2 ± 2.3% (91.4–98.8%) of the colonic mucosa (p > 0.05). Mean interpretation time decreased from 14.6 ± 2.5 (9.2–22.8) minutes with SV to 7.5 ± 3.2 (5.0–14.4) using PV (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

3D CTC interpretation using unidirectional PV is equally as accurate, but significantly faster than an interpretation based on bidirectional SV.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Laghi A, Lefere P, Halligan S, Stoker J (2007) European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:575–579CrossRefPubMed Taylor SA, Laghi A, Lefere P, Halligan S, Stoker J (2007) European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:575–579CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY et al (2008) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359:1207–1217CrossRefPubMed Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY et al (2008) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359:1207–1217CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G et al (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of advanced neoplasia in individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Jama 301:2453–2461CrossRefPubMed Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G et al (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of advanced neoplasia in individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Jama 301:2453–2461CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Yasumoto T, Murakami T, Yamamoto H et al (2006) Assessment of two 3D MDCT colonography protocols for observation of colorectal polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:85–89CrossRefPubMed Yasumoto T, Murakami T, Yamamoto H et al (2006) Assessment of two 3D MDCT colonography protocols for observation of colorectal polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:85–89CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Reed JE, Garry J (2001) Feasibility of planar virtual pathology: a new paradigm in volume-rendered CT colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 25:864–869CrossRefPubMed Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Reed JE, Garry J (2001) Feasibility of planar virtual pathology: a new paradigm in volume-rendered CT colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 25:864–869CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Vos FM, van Gelder RE, Serlie IW et al (2003) Three-dimensional display modes for CT colonography: conventional 3D virtual colonoscopy versus unfolded cube projection. Radiology 228:878–885CrossRefPubMed Vos FM, van Gelder RE, Serlie IW et al (2003) Three-dimensional display modes for CT colonography: conventional 3D virtual colonoscopy versus unfolded cube projection. Radiology 228:878–885CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Kim SH, Lee JM, Eun HW et al (2007) Two- versus three-dimensional colon evaluation with recently developed virtual dissection software for CT colonography. Radiology 244:852–864CrossRefPubMed Kim SH, Lee JM, Eun HW et al (2007) Two- versus three-dimensional colon evaluation with recently developed virtual dissection software for CT colonography. Radiology 244:852–864CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Gopal DV (2006) Surface visualization at 3D endoluminal CT colonography: degree of coverage and implications for polyp detection. Gastroenterology 130:1582–1587CrossRefPubMed Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Gopal DV (2006) Surface visualization at 3D endoluminal CT colonography: degree of coverage and implications for polyp detection. Gastroenterology 130:1582–1587CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Geiger B, Chefd’hotel C, Sudarsky S (2005) Panoramic views for virtual endoscopy. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Int Conf Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 8(Pt 1):662–669 Geiger B, Chefd’hotel C, Sudarsky S (2005) Panoramic views for virtual endoscopy. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Int Conf Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 8(Pt 1):662–669
10.
go back to reference Christensen E (2007) Methodology of superiority vs. equivalence trials and non-inferiority trials. J Hepatol 46:947–954CrossRefPubMed Christensen E (2007) Methodology of superiority vs. equivalence trials and non-inferiority trials. J Hepatol 46:947–954CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D et al (2009) Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut 58:241–248CrossRefPubMed Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D et al (2009) Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut 58:241–248CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Graser A, Wintersperger BJ, Suess C, Reiser MF, Becker CR (2006) Dose reduction and image quality in MDCT colonography using tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:695–701CrossRefPubMed Graser A, Wintersperger BJ, Suess C, Reiser MF, Becker CR (2006) Dose reduction and image quality in MDCT colonography using tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:695–701CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200CrossRefPubMed Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR et al (2005) CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 236:3–9CrossRefPubMed Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR et al (2005) CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 236:3–9CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Macari M, Bini EJ, Jacobs SL, Lange N, Lui YW (2003) Filling defects at CT colonography: pseudo- and diminutive lesions (the good), polyps (the bad), flat lesions, masses, and carcinomas (the ugly). Radiographics 23:1073–1091CrossRefPubMed Macari M, Bini EJ, Jacobs SL, Lange N, Lui YW (2003) Filling defects at CT colonography: pseudo- and diminutive lesions (the good), polyps (the bad), flat lesions, masses, and carcinomas (the ugly). Radiographics 23:1073–1091CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, Taylor AJ et al (2007) Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1451–1456CrossRefPubMed Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, Taylor AJ et al (2007) Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1451–1456CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Neri E, Vannozzi F, Vagli P, Bardine A, Bartolozzi C (2006) Time efficiency of CT colonography: 2D vs 3D visualization. Comput Med Imaging Graph 30:175–180CrossRefPubMed Neri E, Vannozzi F, Vagli P, Bardine A, Bartolozzi C (2006) Time efficiency of CT colonography: 2D vs 3D visualization. Comput Med Imaging Graph 30:175–180CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
go back to reference Silva AC, Wellnitz CV, Hara AK (2006) Three-dimensional virtual dissection at CT colonography: unraveling the colon to search for lesions. Radiographics 26:1669–1686CrossRefPubMed Silva AC, Wellnitz CV, Hara AK (2006) Three-dimensional virtual dissection at CT colonography: unraveling the colon to search for lesions. Radiographics 26:1669–1686CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference East JE, Saunders BP, Boone D, Burling D, Halligan S, Taylor SA (2008) Uni- and bidirectional wide angle CT colonography: effect on missed areas, surface visualization, viewing time and polyp conspicuity. Eur Radiol 18:1910–1917CrossRefPubMed East JE, Saunders BP, Boone D, Burling D, Halligan S, Taylor SA (2008) Uni- and bidirectional wide angle CT colonography: effect on missed areas, surface visualization, viewing time and polyp conspicuity. Eur Radiol 18:1910–1917CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference East JE, Saunders BP, Burling D, Boone D, Halligan S, Taylor SA (2007) Surface visualization at CT colonography simulated colonoscopy: effect of varying field of view and retrograde view. Am J Gastroenterol 102:2529–2535CrossRefPubMed East JE, Saunders BP, Burling D, Boone D, Halligan S, Taylor SA (2007) Surface visualization at CT colonography simulated colonoscopy: effect of varying field of view and retrograde view. Am J Gastroenterol 102:2529–2535CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Schumacher C, Kim DH (2009) Polyp detection at 3-dimensional endoluminal computed tomography colonography: sensitivity of one-way fly-through at 120 degrees field-of-view angle. J Comput Assist Tomogr 33:631–635CrossRefPubMed Pickhardt PJ, Schumacher C, Kim DH (2009) Polyp detection at 3-dimensional endoluminal computed tomography colonography: sensitivity of one-way fly-through at 120 degrees field-of-view angle. J Comput Assist Tomogr 33:631–635CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Lee SS, Park SH, Kim JK et al (2009) Panoramic endoluminal display with minimal image distortion using circumferential radial ray-casting for primary three-dimensional interpretation of CT colonography. Eur Radiol 19:1951–1959CrossRefPubMed Lee SS, Park SH, Kim JK et al (2009) Panoramic endoluminal display with minimal image distortion using circumferential radial ray-casting for primary three-dimensional interpretation of CT colonography. Eur Radiol 19:1951–1959CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Hoppe H, Quattropani C, Spreng A, Mattich J, Netzer P, Dinkel HP (2004) Virtual colon dissection with CT colonography compared with axial interpretation and conventional colonoscopy: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:1151–1158PubMed Hoppe H, Quattropani C, Spreng A, Mattich J, Netzer P, Dinkel HP (2004) Virtual colon dissection with CT colonography compared with axial interpretation and conventional colonoscopy: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:1151–1158PubMed
25.
go back to reference Juchems MS, Fleiter TR, Pauls S, Schmidt SA, Brambs HJ, Aschoff AJ (2006) CT colonography: comparison of a colon dissection display versus 3D endoluminal view for the detection of polyps. Eur Radiol 16:68–72CrossRefPubMed Juchems MS, Fleiter TR, Pauls S, Schmidt SA, Brambs HJ, Aschoff AJ (2006) CT colonography: comparison of a colon dissection display versus 3D endoluminal view for the detection of polyps. Eur Radiol 16:68–72CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ (2005) CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) for primary colorectal screening: challenges facing clinical implementation. Abdom Imaging 30:1–4CrossRefPubMed Pickhardt PJ (2005) CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) for primary colorectal screening: challenges facing clinical implementation. Abdom Imaging 30:1–4CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607CrossRefPubMed Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Soto JA, Barish MA, Yee J (2005) Reader training in CT colonography: how much is enough? Radiology 237:26–27CrossRefPubMed Soto JA, Barish MA, Yee J (2005) Reader training in CT colonography: how much is enough? Radiology 237:26–27CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference van Dam J, Cotton P, Johnson CD et al (2004) AGA future trends report: CT colonography. Gastroenterology 127:970–984CrossRefPubMed van Dam J, Cotton P, Johnson CD et al (2004) AGA future trends report: CT colonography. Gastroenterology 127:970–984CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D et al (2004) CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol 14:1025–1033CrossRefPubMed Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D et al (2004) CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol 14:1025–1033CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Lenhart DK, Babb J, Bonavita J, et al (2010) Comparison of a unidirectional panoramic 3D endoluminal interpretation technique to traditional 2D and bidirectional 3D interpretation techniques at CT colonography: preliminary observations. Clin Radiol 65:118–125 Lenhart DK, Babb J, Bonavita J, et al (2010) Comparison of a unidirectional panoramic 3D endoluminal interpretation technique to traditional 2D and bidirectional 3D interpretation techniques at CT colonography: preliminary observations. Clin Radiol 65:118–125
32.
go back to reference Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Brenner G, Altenhofen L, Haug U (2009) Expected reduction of colorectal cancer incidence within 8 years after introduction of the German screening colonoscopy programme: estimates based on 1, 875, 708 screening colonoscopies. Eur J Cancer 45:2027–2033CrossRefPubMed Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Brenner G, Altenhofen L, Haug U (2009) Expected reduction of colorectal cancer incidence within 8 years after introduction of the German screening colonoscopy programme: estimates based on 1, 875, 708 screening colonoscopies. Eur J Cancer 45:2027–2033CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and interpretation times for a standard and an advanced 3D visualisation technique in CT colonography
Authors
Thomas Mang
Frank T. Kolligs
Claus Schaefer
Maxmilian F. Reiser
Anno Graser
Publication date
01-03-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1953-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

European Radiology 3/2011 Go to the issue