PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16905382

Computer-assisted detection for CT colonography: external validation.

Abstract

AIM: To externally validate a computer-assisted detection (CAD) system for computed tomography (CT) colonography, using data from a single centre uninvolved with the software development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five multi-detector CT colonography examinations of patients with validated polyps accumulated at a single centre were examined by two readers who used endoscopic and histopathological data to identify polyp coordinates. A CAD system that had been developed using data from elsewhere, and had not previously encountered the present data, was then applied to the data at sphericity filter settings of 0.75 and 0.50 and identified potential polyps. True-positive, false-negative, and false-positive counts were determined by comparison with the known polyp coordinates. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients had 57 polyps, median size 6mm (range 1-15mm). Per-patient sensitivity for the CAD system was 96% (24 of 25). The CAD system detected 44 (77%) polyps at sphericity setting 0.75 and 49 (86%) polyps at sphericity 0.50: the additional five polyps detected all measured 5mm or less. Sphericity of 0.75 resulted in a median of 10 (one to 34) easily dismissed false-positive prompts per patient and a median of 4 (zero to 15) that needed three-dimensional rendering before dismissal. This rose to 32 (16 to 99) and 11 (three to 35), respectively, at sphericity 0.5. CONCLUSIONS: A per-patient sensitivity of 96% was found for the CAD system (in patients with a median polyp diameter of 6mm) using external validation, a more stringent test than either internal cross-validation or temporal validation. Decreasing sphericity increases sensitivity for small polyps at the expense of decreased specificity.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Halligan, S A Taylor, J Dehmeshki, H Amin, X Ye, J Tsang, M E Roddie. 2006. Computer-assisted detection for CT colonography: external validation.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2006.02.015

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

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↗

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↗

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↗