Search

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the image quality in submillisievert computed tomographic colonography (CTC) images using a structure preserving diffusion denoising method., Methods: Image quality was compared before and after denoising in 31 patients. One hundred twenty-kilovolt, 30-mAs prone CTC scans were used as reference and compared with submillisievert 140-kV, 10-mAs supine scans. Two readers assessed 2-dimensional and endoluminal image quality. The image noise and the signal-to-noise ratio were measured., Results: After denoising, image quality scores improved in both supine series and prone series (P < 0.0001), with the submillisievert denoised images being equal to or better than the native prone reference images. In both the supine images and the prone images, the noise was reduced by a factor of 2 and the signal-to-noise ratio was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The signal-to-noise ratio in the denoised submillisievert images was higher than those in the native prone images (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: The structure preserving diffusion denoising method preserves the image quality in submillisievert CTC images compared with the native 30-mAs reference images.

The purpose of this study was to investigate if experienced readers differ when matching polyps shown by both CT colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) and to explore the reasons for discrepancy. Twenty-eight CTC cases with corresponding OC were presented to eight experienced CTC readers. Cases represented a broad spectrum of findings, not completely fulfilling typical matching criteria. In 21 cases there was a single polyp on CTC and OC; in seven there were multiple polyps. Agreement between readers for matching was analyzed. For the 21 single-polyp cases, the number of correct matches per reader varied from 13 to 19. Almost complete agreement between readers was observed in 15 cases (71%), but substantial discrepancy was found for the remaining six (29%) probably due to large perceived differences in polyp size between CT and OC. Readers were able to match between 27 (71%) and 35 (92%) of the 38 CTC detected polyps in the seven cases with multiple polyps. Experienced CTC readers agree to a considerable extent when matching polyps between CTC and subsequent OC, but non-negligible disagreement exists.

The purpose was to evaluate supine/left decubitus as an alternative to supine/prone scanning in computed tomographic colonography (CT colonography). Fifty patients were randomised to supine/prone, another 50 to supine/left decubitus scanning. Patients were scanned using a single-slice CT scanner. The colon was divided into eight segments. Comparisons of distension, breathing artefacts, residus and polyp detection were made between the two groups as well as between the different positions. Adequate distension was found in approximately 85, 97 and 95% of segments in the supine, prone and left decubitus positions, respectively. Combined scanning increased the percentage of adequate distension to 98.5% for prone-supine and 97.7% for left decubitus-supine scanning ( P<0.0005 compared to supine, P=0.001 compared to left decubitus and P=0.046 compared to prone scanning). Absence of residual material was found in approximately 62.7, 69.7 and 64% of segments in the supine, prone and left decubitus positions, respectively. Combined scanning increased this percentage to approximately 99% for both groups. No significant differences towards distension or residual material were found between combined supine-prone or supine-left decubitus scanning. In the supine-prone group, combined scanning additionally revealed four lesions and improved conspicuity in two cases of stalked polyps. In the supine-left decubitus group, combined scanning additionally revealed two lesions and improved conspicuity in one stalked polyp. There were significantly fewer breathing artefacts with left decubitus scanning than prone scanning ( P=0.005). A strong positive correlation was found between breathing artefacts and the age of patients in both patient groups. Colonic distension and preparation is improved by using supine and prone or supine and left decubitus scanning in combination, with a subsequent improved polyp detection. There were no significant differences between the two scanning protocols. Prone scanning, however, is hampered by breathing artefacts, especially in the elderly. Therefore, supine-left decubitus scanning is considered a valuable alternative to supine-prone scanning for the elderly.

Purpose: To compare reduced colonic cleansing based on dietary fecal tagging (FT) with standard (non-FT) colonic cleansing with regard to patient acceptance, sensitivity, and specificity., Materials and Methods: In 50 patients (FT group), FT was performed by means of diet, magnesium citrate, and a barium suspension. In another 50 patients (non-FT group), preparation was based on polyethylene glycol administration. All patients underwent conventional colonoscopy after computed tomographic (CT) colonography. Sensitivity and specificity for polyp detection were calculated by using conventional colonography as the reference standard. At CT colonography, fecal residue was evaluated. Patients were interviewed to determine discomfort, side effects, sleep quality, final opinion on examination comfort, and whether they would be reluctant to undergo the same examination again., Results: FT left more fecal residue but improved differentiation from polyps (FT specificity, 88% [30 of 34 patients]; non-FT, 77% [23 of 30 patients]). Sensitivities were comparable: FT, 88% (14 of 16 patients); non-FT, 85% (17 of 20 patients). FT significantly reduced discomfort, side effects, and sleep disturbance, and resulted in an improved final opinion of how comfortable the examination was (P <.05). Although FT improved patient willingness to repeat the examination, this improvement was not statistically significant (P >.05)., Conclusion: FT offers the patient a well-tolerated preparation and improves specificity, with improved differentiation of polyps from residual stool., (Copyright RSNA, 2002)