Polyp Detection with CT Colonography: Primary 3D Endoluminal Analysis versus Primary 2D Transverse Analysis with Computer-assisted Reader Software

Published Online:Jun 1 2006https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2392050483

Abstract

Purpose: To retrospectively compare primary three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal analysis with primary two-dimensional (2D) transverse analysis supplemented by computer-assisted reader (CAR) software for computed tomographic (CT) polyp detection and reader reporting times.

Materials and Methods: Ethical permission and patient consent were obtained from all donor institutions for use of CT colonography data sets. Twenty CT colonography data sets from 14 men (median age, 61 years; age range, 52–78 years) with 48 endoscopically proved polyps were selected. Polyp coordinates were documented in consensus by three unblinded radiologists to create a reference standard. Two radiologists read the data sets, which were randomized between primary 3D endoluminal views with 2D problem solving and 2D views supplemented by CAR software. Reading times and diagnostic confidence were documented. The CAR software highlighted possible polyps by superimposing circles on the 2D transverse images. Data sets were reread after 1 month by using the opposing analysis method. Detection rates were compared by using the McNemar test. Reporting times and diagnostic confidence were compared by using the paired t test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively.

Results: Mean sensitivity values for polyps measuring 1–5, 6–9, and 10 mm or larger were 14%, 53%, and 83%, respectively, for 2D CAR analysis and 16%, 53%, and 67%, respectively, for primary 3D analysis. Overall sensitivity values were 41% for 2D CAR analysis and 39% for primary 3D analysis (P = .77). Reader 1 detected more polyps than reader 2, particularly when using the 3D fly-through method (P = .002). Mean reading times were significantly longer with the 3D method (P = .001). Mean false-positive findings were 1.5 for 2D analysis and 5.5 for 3D analysis. Reader confidence was not significantly different between analysis methods (P = .42).

Conclusion: Two-dimensional CAR analysis is quicker and at least matches the sensitivity of primary 3D endoluminal analysis, with fewer false-positive findings.

References

1 Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, Steinauer-Gebauer AM, Wall SD, McQuaid KR. Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 2001; 219: 685–692.
Google Scholar
2 Macari M, Bini EJ, Jacobs SL, et al. Colorectal polyps and cancers in asymptomatic average-risk patients: evaluation with CT colonography. Radiology 2004;230:629–636.
Google Scholar
3 Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone I, et al. Detection of colorectal lesions with virtual computed tomographic colonography. Am J Surg 2002;183:124–131.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4 Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2191–2200.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5 Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004;291:1713–1719.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6 Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA, et al. Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003;125:311–319.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7 Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 2005;365:305–311.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8 Ferrucci JT. Colonoscopy: virtual and optical—another look, another view. Radiology 2005;235:13–16.
Google Scholar
9 Pickhardt PJ. Differential diagnosis of polypoid lesions seen at CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). RadioGraphics 2004;24:1535–1556.
Google Scholar
10 Pickhardt PJ. Three-dimensional endoluminal CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy): comparison of three commercially available systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1599–1606.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11 Macari M, Milano A, Lavelle M, Berman P, Megibow AJ. Comparison of time-efficient CT colonography with two- and three-dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1543–1549.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12 Dachman AH, Kuniyoshi JK, Boyle CM, et al. CT colonography with three-dimensional problem solving for detection of colonic polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:989–995.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13 McFarland EG, Brink JA, Pilgram TK, et al. Spiral CT colonography: reader agreement and diagnostic performance with two- and three-dimensional image-display techniques. Radiology 2001;218:375–383.
Google Scholar
14 van Gelder R, Florie J, Nio CY, Jensch S, Venema HW, Stoker J. A comparison of primary 2D and 3D methods to review CT colonography (abstr). In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2004; 478.
Google Scholar
15 Macari M, Lee J, Garcia R, Megibow AJ, Bennett GL, Babb J. Primary 2D versus 3D interpretation techniques using thin section multi-detector row CT colonography (abstr). In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2004; 478.
Google Scholar
16 Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, et al. CT colonography: performance of computer assisted reader software for polyp detection in comparison to expert observers. AJR Am J Roentgenol (in press).
Google Scholar
17 Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC 3rd, Barish MA, Clarke PD, Ferrucci JT. A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1496–1503.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18 Rockette HE, Gur D, Metz CE. The use of continuous and discrete confidence judgments in receiver operating characteristic studies of diagnostic imaging techniques. Invest Radiol 1992;27:169–172.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19 Johnson CD, Toledano AY, Herman BA, et al. Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting. Gastroenterology 2003;125:688–695.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20 Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001;220:781–786.
Google Scholar
21 Summers RM, Jerebko AK, Franaszek M, Malley JD, Johnson CD. Colonic polyps: complementary role of computer-aided detection in CT colonography. Radiology 2002;225:391–399.
Google Scholar
22 Summers RM, Johnson CD, Pusanik LM, Malley JD, Youssef AM, Reed JE. Automated polyp detection at CT colonography: feasibility assessment in a human population. Radiology 2001;219:51–59.
Google Scholar
23 Yoshida H, Nappi J, MacEneaney P, Rubin DT, Dachman AH. Computer-aided diagnosis scheme for detection of polyps at CT colonography. RadioGraphics 2002;22:963–979.
Google Scholar
24 Yoshida H, Masutani Y, MacEneaney P, Rubin DT, Dachman AH. Computerized detection of colonic polyps at CT colonography on the basis of volumetric features: pilot study. Radiology 2002;222:327–336.
Google Scholar
25 Mani A, Napel S, Paik DS, et al. Computed tomography colonography: feasibility of computer-aided polyp detection in a “first reader” paradigm. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004;28:318–326.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26 Dachman AH, Schumm P, Heckel B, Yoshida H, LaRiviere P. The effect of reconstruction algorithm on conspicuity of polyps in CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1349–1353.
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: June 2006

Vol. 239, No. 3

Metrics

Altmetric Score

PDF download