PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Ingmar Bitter

Publications and source records attributed to Ingmar Bitter.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Assessment of polyp and mass histopathology by intravenous contrast-enhanced CT colonography.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to demonstrate that intravenous contrast-enhanced CT colonography (CTC) can distinguish colonic adenomas from carcinomas. METHODS: Supine intravenous contrast-enhanced CTC with colonoscopic and/or surgical correlation was performed on 25 patients with colonic adenomas or carcinomas. Standard deviation of mean polyp CT attenuation was computed and assessed using ANOVA and receiver-operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: Colonoscopy confirmed 32 polyps or masses 1 to 8 cm in size. The standard deviations of CT attenuation were carcinomas (n = 13; 36 +/- 6 HU; range 28-48 HU) and adenomas (n = 19; 49 +/- 14 HU; range 31-100 HU) (P = 0.005). At a standard deviation threshold of 42 HU, the sensitivity and specificity for classifying a polyp or mass as a carcinoma were 92% and 79%, respectively. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.89 +/- 0.06 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of the standard deviation of CT attenuation on intravenous contrast-enhanced CTC permits histopathologic classification of polyps 1 cm or larger as carcinomas versus adenomas. The presence of ulceration or absence of muscular invasion in carcinomas creates overlap with adenomas, reducing the specificity of carcinoma classification.

Adenoma↗

Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The sensitivity of computed tomographic (CT) virtual colonoscopy (CT colonography) for detecting polyps varies widely in recently reported large clinical trials. Our objective was to determine whether a computer program is as sensitive as optical colonoscopy for the detection of adenomatous colonic polyps on CT virtual colonoscopy. METHODS: The data set was a cohort of 1186 screening patients at 3 medical centers. All patients underwent same-day virtual and optical colonoscopy. Our enhanced gold standard combined segmental unblinded optical colonoscopy and retrospective identification of precise polyp locations. The data were randomized into separate training (n = 394) and test (n = 792) sets for analysis by a computer-aided polyp detection (CAD) program. RESULTS: For the test set, per-polyp and per-patient sensitivities for CAD were both 89.3% (25/28; 95% confidence interval, 71.8%-97.7%) for detecting retrospectively identifiable adenomatous polyps at least 1 cm in size. The false-positive rate was 2.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.0-2.2) false polyps per patient. Both carcinomas were detected by CAD at a false-positive rate of 0.7 per patient; only 1 of 2 was detected by optical colonoscopy before segmental unblinding. At both 8-mm and 10-mm adenoma size thresholds, the per-patient sensitivities of CAD were not significantly different from those of optical colonoscopy before segmental unblinding. CONCLUSIONS: The per-patient sensitivity of CT virtual colonoscopy CAD in an asymptomatic screening population is comparable to that of optical colonoscopy for adenomas > or = 8 mm and is generalizable to new CT virtual colonoscopy data.

Adenomatous Polyps↗

Virtual colonoscopy.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Colonography, Computed Tomographic↗

Automatic centerline extraction for virtual colonoscopy.

In this paper, we introduce a concise and concrete definition of an accurate colon centerline and provide an efficient automatic means to extract the centerline and its associated branches (caused by a forceful touching of colon and small bowel or a deep fold in twisted colon lumen). We further discuss its applications on fly-through path planning and endoscopic simulation, as well as its potential to solve the challenging touching and colon collapse problems in virtual colonoscopy. Experimental results demonstrated its centeredness, robustness, and efficiency.

Algorithms↗