PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12426740

[Virtual colonoscopy--chances for a screening procedure?].

G F Rust·M Reiser
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In principle, virtual colonoscopy is capable to be used as method for early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC), even if the accuracy of the method and radiation exposure are matters discussion in the radiological community. Virtual colonoscopy is able to detect any pathology which is relevant for early detection of CRC especially when using multislice CT, but also with single slice CT. The diagnosis of small lesions, less than 7 mm in diameter (polyps and flat lesions) is still problematic as it is in conventional colonoscopy. The exposure to x-rays in asymptomatic patients, without any increased risk of developing cancer is highly problematic and should be reduced to a minimum. Using special post processing filters on the volume dataset it can be shown that a tube current of 20 mAs is sufficient without any loss in accuracy. Measurements on the Alderson-phantom showed, that an effective dose exposure of 1.2 mSv is obtained using these reduced mAs values. It has to be differentiated between virtual colonoscopy for early detection of polyps and CRC in individual patients or as a screening examination of a large population. Virtual colonoscopy as a screening examination necessitates reduction of radiation dose, a high degree of automatization in 3D reconstructions as well as the assessment of the entire mucosa. High risk patients, whom refuse fibreoptic colonoscopy should undergo virtual colonoscopy. Virtual colonoscopy has a good chance to become an accepted tool for general screening, if efficient dose reduction, complete visualization of the colon mucosa and automatization of the post processing procedures can be achieved.

Explore related subjects

Colonic PolypsColonography, Computed TomographicColorectal NeoplasmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalIntestinal MucosaMass ScreeningNeoplasm StagingPilot ProjectsRadiation DosageReproducibility of ResultsEvaluation StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G F Rust, M Reiser. 2002. [Virtual colonoscopy--chances for a screening procedure?].. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-002-0791-5

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↗