PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15855065

CT colonography using different reconstruction modi.

Rainer Röttgen·Frank Fischbach·Michail Plotkin·Michael Lorenz·Torsten Freund·Ralf Jürgen Schröder·Roland R Felix
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Performing computed tomography (CT) colonography, we compared different reconstruction modi for the detection of colorectal polyps. METHODS: The CT data of 48 patients using 16-slice helical CT were analysed in axial slices, virtual-endoscopy and colon-dissection modus. RESULTS: The sensitivity (specificity) for the detection of colonic polyps was 94% (80%) if using "colonic-dissection" tool and 89% (80%) if using "virtual-endoscopy" tool. The difference between the virtual endoscopy and colon dissection, considering polyps up to 4.9 mm, was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Reconstruction software colon dissection improves the sensitivity of CT colonography.

Explore related subjects

Colonic PolypsColonography, Computed TomographicFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationSensitivity and SpecificitySoftwareComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rainer Röttgen, Frank Fischbach, Michail Plotkin, Michael Lorenz, Torsten Freund, Ralf Jürgen Schröder, Roland R Felix. CT colonography using different reconstruction modi.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2004.07.005

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

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↗