Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9830662

[Virtual colonoscopy using CT and MRI].

J Scheidler·C Frank·C Becker·H Feist·G Michalski·M Schätzl·A Bäuml·A F Heuck·M F Reiser
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate experimentally and in patients the sensitivity and effective dose of virtual electron-beam tomography (EBT) colonoscopy for detecting small colon tumors and to compare the methods and results with virtual colonoscopy using spiral CT and MR imaging in a review of the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six polyps with diameters between 3 and 12 mm were created and randomly placed in resected pig colon. After distension with air, the pig colon was scanned with continuous volume scanning (CVS, 3 mm collimation) and a pitch of 0.4, 0.8 and 1.5. Twenty patients positive for the fecal blood test were examined after rectal CO2 insufflation and i.v. administration of 1 mg glucagon. A 13 s CVS scan was used to cover the entire colon within one breath-hold. 3D volume-rendered fly-throughs were evaluated by two independent radiologists. Effective dose equivalent was estimated using an Alderson phantom equipped with thermoluminescence dosimeters. RESULTS: In the tumor model, all polyps were detectable at a pitch of 1.5. A further reduction of the pitch ratio did not improve the conspicuity of the polyps. In patient studies, all tumors (n = 4) and polyps (n = 3) were correctly identified on 3D fly-throughs. Two false positive results were obtained. Effective dose equivalent was calculated at 3.2 mSv per scan. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results indicate that virtual EBT colonoscopy holds promise for fast screening for colon polyps. The best technique for virtual colonoscopy (Spiral CT, EBT, MRI) has not yet been determined and the future role of virtual colonoscopy must still be defined.

Explore related subjects

Colonic PolypsColonoscopyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonTomography, X-Ray ComputedUser-Computer InterfaceEnglish AbstractJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Scheidler, C Frank, C Becker, H Feist, G Michalski, M Schätzl, A Bäuml, A F Heuck, M F Reiser. 1998. [Virtual colonoscopy using CT and MRI].. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001170050430

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

CT colonography: techniques, indications, findings.

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive technique for imaging the entire colon. Based on a helical thin-section CT of the cleansed and air-distended colon, two-dimensional and three-dimensional projections are used for image interpretation. Several clinical improvements in patient preparation, technical advances in CT, and new developments in evaluation software have allowed CTC to develop into a powerful diagnostic tool. It is already well established as a reliable diagnostic tool in symptomatic patients. Many experts currently consider CTC a comparable alternative to conventional colonoscopy, although there is still debate about its sensitivity for the detection of colonic polyps in a screening population. This article summarizes the main indications, the current techniques in patient preparation, data acquisition and data analysis as well as imaging features for common benign and malignant colorectal lesions.

Colonic Polyps↗
PubMed2007

A novel retrograde-viewing auxiliary imaging device (Third Eye Retroscope) improves the detection of simulated polyps in anatomic models of the colon.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the "gold standard" for colorectal polyp and cancer detection, but important lesions may be missed on the proximal aspect of haustral folds, rectal valves, or flexures. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to evaluate a prototype auxiliary imaging device that extends beyond the colonoscope's tip, providing a continuous retrograde view to detect lesions missed by the forward-viewing colonoscope. DESIGN: Three anatomic models of the colon were prepared with simulated polyps, 32% in obvious locations and 68% on the proximal aspect of folds. Six endoscopists examined each model with two methods. Method A used a standard video colonoscope. Method B involved an identical colonoscope with a retrograde-viewing auxiliary device positioned within its instrument channel. Order of testing was randomized and blinded. SETTING: Laboratory bench. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Detection rates for simulated polyps. RESULTS: Of 78 "obvious" polyps, 69 (88%) and 70 (90%) were detected by methods A and B, respectively (P > .9). In contrast, of 162 polyps on proximal aspects of folds, 20 (12%) and 131 (81%) were detected by methods A and B, respectively (P < .00001). LIMITATIONS: Limitations resulted from (1) use of commercially available anatomic models in which haustral folds are less prominent and more rigid than in humans and (2) evaluation of a prototype device that had larger size and narrower angle of view than the planned production model and that was fixed in relation to the colonoscope. CONCLUSIONS: In simulated testing, a retrograde-viewing auxiliary imaging device used with a standard video colonoscope significantly improves detection rates of simulated polyps and promises to enhance the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in humans.

Colonic Polyps↗
PubMed2006

Detection of colorectal polyps: comparison of multi-detector row CT and MR colonography in a colon phantom.

PURPOSE: To compare multi-detector row (four- and 16-section) computed tomography (CT), including a low-dose protocol, with high-field-strength (1.5- and 3.0-T) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for reader detection of colorectal polyps in a colon phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A colon phantom with simulated haustral folds and 10 polyps of varying size (2.0-8.0 mm) was imaged at four- and 16-section CT (section thicknesses of 1.25 and 0.75 mm, reconstruction increments of 0.8 and 0.7 mm, and 100 and 10 mAs, respectively, and 120 kV for both) and at 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging (three-dimensional gradient-recalled echo sequence, section thickness of 1.4 mm). Three-dimensional endoluminal images were assessed by 10 reviewers for each modality regarding polyp detection. Comparisons of sensitivities were performed by using logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, polyps were detected with a sensitivity of 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 80%, 94%) at four-section CT, 92% (95% CI: 87%, 97%) at 16-section CT, 56% (95% CI: 46%, 66%) at 1.5-T MR imaging, and 55% (95% CI: 45%, 65%) at 3.0-T MR imaging. The detection of polyps at least 4 mm in diameter was not influenced by the modality or radiation dose (sensitivity of 100%). CT performed in low-dose mode depicted all polyps with a diameter of at least 3 mm. Polyps smaller than 3 mm in diameter were detected with a sensitivity of 7.5% (1.5-T MR imaging), 22.5% (3.0-T MR imaging), and 20% (low-dose CT); detection rates were significantly greater (P < .001) with normal-dose CT (four section, 67.5%; 16 section, 82.5%). Increased spatial resolution (with CT) and higher field strength (with MR imaging) had no significant effect on polyp detection. CONCLUSION: With both multi-detector row CT and MR imaging, readers detected polyps above the clinically relevant threshold diameter of 6 mm, with similar sensitivities.

Colonic Polyps↗