CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Humans↗
Biomedical subjects
Elizabeth G McFarland
Publications and source records attributed to Elizabeth G McFarland.
Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of polyp measurement at computed tomographic (CT) colonography by using two-dimensional (2D) multiplanar reformation (MPR) and three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal displays obtained both in a colon phantom and at clinical examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval, and all patients provided signed informed consent, both of which allowed for additional retrospective evaluation. Two-dimensional and 3D CT colonography displays were generated from data obtained in an in vitro colon phantom that contained 10 6-13-mm synthetic polyps and from data obtained at in vivo clinical CT colonography examinations performed in 10 patients (five men, five women; mean age, 56.3 years) with proved polyps (size range, 7-25 mm). The reference standard for in vivo polyp size was optical colonoscopic measurement with a calibrated linear probe. Polyps were measured at CT colonography with 2D MPR and 3D endoluminal displays and electronic calipers by four radiologists who were unaware of the reference size measurements. The largest of the three 2D MPR measurements was considered the "optimized" 2D projection. Statistical analysis was performed with Wilcoxon signed rank, repeated-measures analysis of variance, and paired t testing. RESULTS: For the phantom, the mean errors (differences between actual polyp size and that measured at CT colonography) for 2D transverse, 2D coronal, and 3D endoluminal displays were 1.6 mm +/- 0.8 (standard deviation), 1.4 mm +/- 0.7, and 0.8 mm +/- 0.5, respectively. For in vivo polyp measurements, the mean errors for 2D transverse, 2D coronal, 2D sagittal, and 3D displays were 4.4 mm +/- 3.5, 3.8 mm +/- 3.3, 4.6 mm +/- 3.0, and 1.9 mm +/- 1.6, respectively. The 2D measurements underestimated actual polyp sizes in all cases. The differences in mean errors between 2D MPR and 3D endoluminal measurements were significant (P < .05). When the optimized 2D view was considered for in vivo measurement, the mean error decreased to 3.0 mm +/- 2.6 (P = .2). CONCLUSION: Linear polyp measurement on 3D endoluminal views was significantly more accurate than measurement on 2D transverse, coronal, or sagittal views, both in vitro and in vivo, for the CT colonography system evaluated. Use of the optimized 2D view substantially reduced 2D measurement error and may be valuable when used in conjunction with 3D measurement.
Analysis of Variance↗
CT colonography: progress toward colorectal evaluation without catharsis.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Cathartics↗
Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: No multicenter study has been reported evaluating the performance and interobserver variability of computerized tomographic colonography. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of computerized tomographic colonography for detecting clinically important colorectal neoplasia (polyps >or=10 mm in diameter) in a multi-institutional study. METHODS: A retrospective study was developed from 341 patients who had computerized tomographic colonography and colonoscopy among 8 medical centers. Colonoscopy and pathology reports provided the standard. A random sample of 117 patients, stratified by criterion standard, was requested. Ninety-three patients were included (47% with polyps >or=10 mm; mean age, 62 years; 56% men; 84% white; 40% reported colorectal symptoms; 74% at increased risk for colorectal cancer). Eighteen radiologists blinded to the criterion standard interpreted computerized tomography colonography examinations, each using 2 of 3 different software display platforms. RESULTS: The average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for identifying patients with at least 1 lesion >or=10 mm was 0.80 (95% lower confidence bound, 0.74). The average sensitivity and specificity were 75% (95% lower confidence bound, 68%) and 73% (95% lower confidence bound, 66%), respectively. Per-polyp sensitivity was 75%. A trend was observed for better performance with more observer experience. There was no difference in performance across software display platforms. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized tomographic colonography performance compared favorably with reported performance of fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema. A prospective study evaluating the performance of computerized tomography colonography in a screening population is indicated.
Colonic Neoplasms↗
Another new look at the small bowel: feasibility of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate Crohn's disease.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Adolescent↗
Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine patient pre-examination expectations and postexamination appraisals for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy and bowel preparation. METHODS: Prospective evaluation of 120 patients at defined risk for colorectal neoplasia was performed with CT colonography followed by colonoscopy on the same day. Subjects were stratified by age and sex (67 women and 53 men) and were randomized to receive either manual air (n = 61) or CO(2) (n = 59) insufflation during CT colonography. Patients' expectations were assessed just before the two examinations, and appraisals were assessed 2 to 3 days afterward regarding pain/discomfort, embarrassment, difficulty, overall assessment, preference for future testing, and bowel preparation. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in appraisals of manual air versus CO(2) insufflation techniques. For both CT colonography and colonoscopy, patients' appraisals after the procedure were significantly more positive than prior expectations. Patients expressed more favorable appraisals of colonoscopy for pain (p < 0.001) and embarrassment (p < 0.001), with most responses being "none" to "a little" for both examinations. Overall appraisals of the tests were favorable and similar between CT and colonoscopy: patients mainly expressed "not unpleasant" to "a little unpleasant" (95%, 114/120 for both examinations). Overall, appraisal of the bowel preparation was the most negative. Preferences for future testing were more favorable toward CT: of the patients, 58% (69/120) preferred CT, 14% (17/120) preferred colonoscopy, and 28% (34/120) had no preference. CONCLUSIONS: Overall appraisals were similar and positive for both CT colonography and colonoscopy, with less favorable appraisals of the bowel preparation. Most patients stated that they would prefer CT for future evaluation.
Adult↗
Detection of primary hepatic malignancy in liver transplant candidates: prospective comparison of CT, MR imaging, US, and PET.
PURPOSE: To determine and compare the diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, ultrasonography (US), and positron emission tomography (PET) in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or cholangiocarcinoma in liver transplant candidates and to determine interobserver variability between the readers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients were examined prospectively with CT, MR imaging, US, and PET. Each test result was interpreted independently by two radiologists. Explanted liver specimens were examined histologically to determine presence and type of lesion. Results were analyzed on a patient-by-patient basis with marginal homogeneity and effect likelihood ratio tests. RESULTS: HCC was diagnosed in nine patients. US diagnostic performance was superior to that of CT and MR imaging on a patient-by-patient basis. Sensitivities were higher for US (0.89 for both US readers) than they were for CT (0.67 and 0.56 for readers 1 and 2, respectively), MR imaging (0.56 and 0.50 for readers 1 and 2, respectively), and PET (0 for both readers). None of the differences (within test) between readers were significant (P >or=.32). Ratings by US and MR observers and one CT observer were significantly associated with truth (P <or=.04). One or more imaging tests depicted 68 lesions. Histologic analysis revealed 18 HCC nodules; of these, 13 were correctly identified at CT, 14 at MR imaging, 13 at US, and none at PET. There were nine false-positive diagnoses of HCC with CT, five with MR imaging, and nine with US. CONCLUSION: Although US had the best diagnostic performance in depicting HCC on a patient-by-patient basis and was substantially better than were MR imaging and CT (which had nearly equivalent diagnostic performances), CT, US, and MR imaging performed similarly on a lesion-by-lesion basis. Small tumor nodules were the most common cause of missed HCCs with all tests. PET did not depict any HCCs.
Adult↗
CT colonography: multiobserver diagnostic performance.
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate multiobserver diagnostic performance and reader agreement for colorectal polyp detection in a well-characterized cohort of patients with increased number of polyps, compared with an average-risk patient, with colonoscopy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 70 patients suspected of having polyps was examined with spiral computed tomographic (CT) colonography, with colonoscopy performed the same day. After air insufflation per rectum, supine and prone images were obtained with single-detector row CT (5-mm collimation, 8-mm table increment, 2-mm reconstruction interval). Images were analyzed independently by four experienced abdominal radiologists using two-dimensional multiplanar reformation followed by selective use of three-dimensional endoscopic volume-rendered images. Data were analyzed both per polyp and per patient. RESULTS: Analysis per polyp demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.68 for lesions 10 mm or larger (n = 40), with 75% agreement among the four readers. Analysis per patient demonstrated improved detection and agreement, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.88 for patients with polyps or cancers 10 mm or larger (n = 28), with 94% agreement. When sensitivity and receiver operating characteristic analyses were analyzed per polyp size threshold, results among readers converged and peaked at polyp diameters of approximately 10 mm. CONCLUSION: In this patient cohort, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement with single-detector row CT colonography was sufficient for detection of patients with lesions 10 mm or larger, with more variable results for smaller polyps.
Adult↗
Computed tomography colonography: automated diameter and volume measurement of colonic polyps compared with a manual technique--in vitro study.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate inter- and intraobserver agreement of automated measurement of polyp diameter in vitro. METHODS: Two phantoms ("QRM" and "Whiting") containing simulated polyps of known diameter and volume were scanned using 16-detector row computed tomography. Two observers estimated polyp diameter using 3 methods: software calipers ("manual"), freehand boundary identification ("semiautomatic"), and automated software segmentation ("fully automatic"). RESULTS: Intraobserver 95% limits of agreement for diameter were narrowest for the fully automatic method (QRM span: 0.39 mm, 0.48 mm; Whiting span: 0.24 mm, 0 mm). Manual estimates were approximately 10 times wider (QRM span: 3.57 mm, 3.21 mm; Whiting span: 3.2 mm, 2.02 mm). Volume estimates were narrowest for the fully automatic method (span: 24.2 mm, 24.1 mm vs. 97.9 mm, 102.9 mm for semiautomatic measurement). Interobserver agreement for diameter was narrowest for the fully automatic method (QRM span: 0.12 mm, Whiting span: 0.16 mm), with the manual method approximately 18 times wider (QRM span: 2.87 mm, Whiting span: 2.18 mm). CONCLUSION: Fully automated measurement of polyp diameter and volume is technically feasible and results in superior inter- and intraobserver agreement.
Colonic Polyps↗