Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 8/2009

Open Access 01-08-2009 | Gastrointestinal

Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers?

Authors: Ayso H. de Vries, Marjolein H. Liedenbaum, Shandra Bipat, Roel Truyen, Iwo W. O. Serlie, Rutger H. Cohen, Saskia G. C. van Elderen, Anneke Heutinck, Oskar Kesselring, Wouter de Monyé, Lambertus te Strake, Tjeerd Wiersma, Jaap Stoker

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare a primary uncleansed 2D and a primary electronically cleansed 3D reading strategy in CTC in limited prepped patients. Seventy-two patients received a low-fibre diet with oral iodine before CT-colonography. Six novices and two experienced observers reviewed both cleansed and uncleansed examinations in randomized order. Mean per-polyp sensitivity was compared between the methods by using generalized estimating equations. Mean per-patient sensitivity, and specificity were compared using the McNemar test. Results were stratified for experience (experienced observers versus novice observers). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices using cleansed 3D (65%; 95%CI 57–73%) compared with uncleansed 2D (51%; 95%CI 44–59%). For experienced observers there was no significant difference. Mean per-patient sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices as well: respectively 75% (95%CI 70–80%) versus 64% (95%CI 59–70%). For experienced observers there was no statistically significant difference. Specificity for both novices and experienced observers was not significantly different. For novices primary electronically cleansed 3D is better for polyp detection than primary uncleansed 2D.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 134:1570–1595PubMedCrossRef Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 134:1570–1595PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J et al (2004) CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 233:328–337PubMedCrossRef van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J et al (2004) CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 233:328–337PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127:1300–1311PubMedCrossRef Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127:1300–1311PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Jensch S, de Vries AH, Peringa J et al (2008) CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population. Radiology 247:122–132PubMedCrossRef Jensch S, de Vries AH, Peringa J et al (2008) CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population. Radiology 247:122–132PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J, Baekelandt M, van HB (2005) CT colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1836–1842PubMed Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J, Baekelandt M, van HB (2005) CT colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1836–1842PubMed
6.
go back to reference Iafrate F, Hassan C, Zullo A et al (2008) CT colonography with reduced bowel preparation after incomplete colonoscopy in the elderly. Eur Radiol 18:1385–1395PubMedCrossRef Iafrate F, Hassan C, Zullo A et al (2008) CT colonography with reduced bowel preparation after incomplete colonoscopy in the elderly. Eur Radiol 18:1385–1395PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gryspeerdt S, Lefere P, Herman M et al (2005) CT colonography with fecal tagging after incomplete colonoscopy. Eur Radiol 15:1192–1202PubMedCrossRef Gryspeerdt S, Lefere P, Herman M et al (2005) CT colonography with fecal tagging after incomplete colonoscopy. Eur Radiol 15:1192–1202PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 227:378–384PubMedCrossRef Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 227:378–384PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Rex DK (2002) Current colorectal cancer screening strategies: overview and obstacles to implementation. Rev Gastroenterol Disord 2(Suppl 1):S2–S11PubMed Rex DK (2002) Current colorectal cancer screening strategies: overview and obstacles to implementation. Rev Gastroenterol Disord 2(Suppl 1):S2–S11PubMed
10.
go back to reference Weitzman ER, Zapka J, Estabrook B, Goins KV (2001) Risk and reluctance: understanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med 32:502–513PubMedCrossRef Weitzman ER, Zapka J, Estabrook B, Goins KV (2001) Risk and reluctance: understanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med 32:502–513PubMedCrossRef
11.
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 189:1451–1456PubMedCrossRef Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, Taylor AJ et al (2007) Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1451–1456PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference van Gelder RE, Florie J, Nio CY et al (2006) A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:1181–1192PubMedCrossRef van Gelder RE, Florie J, Nio CY et al (2006) A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:1181–1192PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Choi JH (2003) Electronic cleansing and stool tagging in CT colonography: advantages and pitfalls with primary three-dimensional evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:799–805PubMed Pickhardt PJ, Choi JH (2003) Electronic cleansing and stool tagging in CT colonography: advantages and pitfalls with primary three-dimensional evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:799–805PubMed
14.
go back to reference van Rossum L, van Rijn A, Laheij R et al (2008) Random comparison of Guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population. Gastroenterology 135(1):82–90PubMedCrossRef van Rossum L, van Rijn A, Laheij R et al (2008) Random comparison of Guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population. Gastroenterology 135(1):82–90PubMedCrossRef
15.
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 228:878–885PubMedCrossRef 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 228:878–885PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Serlie IW, Vos FM, Truyen R, Post FH, van Vliet LJ (2007) Classifying CT image data into material fractions by a scale and rotation invariant edge model. IEEE Trans Image Process 16:2891–2904PubMedCrossRef Serlie IW, Vos FM, Truyen R, Post FH, van Vliet LJ (2007) Classifying CT image data into material fractions by a scale and rotation invariant edge model. IEEE Trans Image Process 16:2891–2904PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Fennerty MB, Davidson J, Emerson SS, Sampliner RE, Hixson LJ, Garewal HS (1993) Are endoscopic measurements of colonic polyps reliable. Am J Gastroenterol 88:496–500PubMed Fennerty MB, Davidson J, Emerson SS, Sampliner RE, Hixson LJ, Garewal HS (1993) Are endoscopic measurements of colonic polyps reliable. Am J Gastroenterol 88:496–500PubMed
19.
go back to reference Gopalswamy N, Shenoy VN, Choudhry U et al (1997) Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate. Gastrointest Endosc 46:497–502PubMedCrossRef Gopalswamy N, Shenoy VN, Choudhry U et al (1997) Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate. Gastrointest Endosc 46:497–502PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Pepe MS (2003) The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 35–65 Pepe MS (2003) The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 35–65
21.
go back to reference Doshi T, Rusinak D, Halvorsen RA, Rockey DC, Suzuki K, Dachman AH (2007) CT colonography: false-negative interpretations. Radiology 244:165–173PubMedCrossRef Doshi T, Rusinak D, Halvorsen RA, Rockey DC, Suzuki K, Dachman AH (2007) CT colonography: false-negative interpretations. Radiology 244:165–173PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Gluecker TM, Fletcher JG, Welch TJ et al (2004) Characterization of lesions missed on interpretation of CT colonography using a 2D search method. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:881–889PubMed Gluecker TM, Fletcher JG, Welch TJ et al (2004) Characterization of lesions missed on interpretation of CT colonography using a 2D search method. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:881–889PubMed
23.
go back to reference Johnson CD, Manduca A, Fletcher JG et al (2008) Noncathartic CT colonography with stool tagging: performance with and without electronic stool subtraction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:361–366PubMedCrossRef Johnson CD, Manduca A, Fletcher JG et al (2008) Noncathartic CT colonography with stool tagging: performance with and without electronic stool subtraction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:361–366PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Juchems MS, Ernst A, Johnson P, Virmani S, Brambs HJ, Aschoff AJ (2008) Electronic colon-cleansing for CT colonography: diagnostic performance. Abdom Imaging. doi: 10.1007/s00261-008-9386-6 Juchems MS, Ernst A, Johnson P, Virmani S, Brambs HJ, Aschoff AJ (2008) Electronic colon-cleansing for CT colonography: diagnostic performance. Abdom Imaging. doi: 10.1007/s00261-008-9386-6
25.
go back to reference Serlie IW, de Vries AH, Vos FM et al (2008) Lesion conspicuity and efficiency of CT colonography with electronic cleansing based on a three-material transition model. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1493–502PubMedCrossRef Serlie IW, de Vries AH, Vos FM et al (2008) Lesion conspicuity and efficiency of CT colonography with electronic cleansing based on a three-material transition model. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1493–502PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Wang Z, Liang Z, Li X et al (2006) An improved electronic colon cleansing method for detection of colonic polyps by virtual colonoscopy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53:1635–1646PubMedCrossRef Wang Z, Liang Z, Li X et al (2006) An improved electronic colon cleansing method for detection of colonic polyps by virtual colonoscopy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53:1635–1646PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C, Kohlberg G, Hahn PF (2006) Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 239:149–159PubMedCrossRef Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C, Kohlberg G, Hahn PF (2006) Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 239:149–159PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ (2007) Characteristics of advanced adenomas detected at CT colonographic screening: implications for appropriate polyp size thresholds for polypectomy versus surveillance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:940–944PubMedCrossRef Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ (2007) Characteristics of advanced adenomas detected at CT colonographic screening: implications for appropriate polyp size thresholds for polypectomy versus surveillance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:940–944PubMedCrossRef
30.
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 17:575–579PubMedCrossRef 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 17:575–579PubMedCrossRef
31.
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 14:1025–1033PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D et al (2004) CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol 14:1025–1033PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Spinzi G, Belloni G, Martegani A, Sangiovanni A, Del FC, Minoli G (2001) Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Gastroenterol 96:394–400PubMedCrossRef Spinzi G, Belloni G, Martegani A, Sangiovanni A, Del FC, Minoli G (2001) Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Gastroenterol 96:394–400PubMedCrossRef
33.
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 359:1207–1217PubMedCrossRef Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY et al (2008) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359:1207–1217PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers?
Authors
Ayso H. de Vries
Marjolein H. Liedenbaum
Shandra Bipat
Roel Truyen
Iwo W. O. Serlie
Rutger H. Cohen
Saskia G. C. van Elderen
Anneke Heutinck
Oskar Kesselring
Wouter de Monyé
Lambertus te Strake
Tjeerd Wiersma
Jaap Stoker
Publication date
01-08-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2009
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1360-3

Other articles of this Issue 8/2009

European Radiology 8/2009 Go to the issue