Search

Purpose To investigate the effect of increasing navigation speed on the visual search and decision making during polyp identification for computed tomography (CT) colonography Materials and Methods Institutional review board permission was obtained to use deidentified CT colonography data for this prospective reader study. After obtaining informed consent from the readers, 12 CT colonography fly-through examinations that depicted eight polyps were presented at four different fixed navigation speeds to 23 radiologists. Speeds ranged from 1 cm/sec to 4.5 cm/sec. Gaze position was tracked by using an infrared eye tracker, and readers indicated that they saw a polyp by clicking a mouse. Patterns of searching and decision making by speed were investigated graphically and by multilevel modeling. Results Readers identified polyps correctly in 56 of 77 (72.7%) of viewings at the slowest speed but in only 137 of 225 (60.9%) of viewings at the fastest speed (P = .004). They also identified fewer false-positive features at faster speeds (42 of 115; 36.5%) of videos at slowest speed, 89 of 345 (25.8%) at fastest, P = .02). Gaze location was highly concentrated toward the central quarter of the screen area at faster speeds (mean gaze points at slowest speed vs fastest speed, 86% vs 97%, respectively). Conclusion Faster navigation speed at endoluminal CT colonography led to progressive restriction of visual search patterns. Greater speed also reduced both true-positive and false-positive colorectal polyp identification. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Background and Study Aims: Terminal digit preference bias for "pleasing" numbers has been described in many areas of medicine. The aim of this study was to determine whether endoscopists, radiologists, and pathologists exhibit such bias when measuring colorectal polyp diameters., Methods: Colorectal polyp diameters measured at endoscopy, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), and histopathology were collated from a colorectal cancer screening program and two parallel multicenter randomized trials. Smoothing models were fitted to the data to estimate the expected number of polyps at 1-mm increments, assuming no systematic measurement bias. The difference between the expected and observed numbers of polyps was calculated for each terminal digit using statistical modeling. The impact of measurement bias on per-patient detection rates of polyps ≥ 10 mm was estimated for each modality., Results: A total of 92 124 individual polyps were measured by endoscopy (91 670 screening and 454 from trials), 2385 polyps were measured by CTC (1664 screening, 721 trials), and 79 272 were measured by histopathology (78 783 screening, 489 trials). Clustering of polyp diameter measurements at 5-mm intervals was demonstrated for all modalities, both in the screening program and the trials. The statistical models estimated that per-patient detection rates of polyps ≥ 10 mm were over-inflated by 2.4 % for endoscopy, 3.1 % for CTC, and 3.3 % for histopathology in the screening program, with similar trends in the randomized trials., Conclusion: Endoscopists, radiologists, and pathologists all exhibit terminal digit preference when measuring colorectal polyps. This will bias trial data, referral rates for further testing, adenoma surveillance regimens, and comparisons between tests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Objective: The objective of our study was to describe the characteristics of polyps viewed but then dismissed incorrectly by radiologists at endoluminal CT colonography (CTC), eye movements during these errors, and features provoking false-positive diagnoses., Materials and Methods: Forty-two radiologists viewed 30 endoluminal CTC videos, each depicting a polyp, while their eye movements were tracked. Half of the videos had computer-assisted detection (CAD), and half did not. Classification errors were defined when proven polyps were seen but dismissed. Eye movements during these errors and during correct polyp identifications were compared with multilevel modeling. Polyps were divided subsequently into "difficult to classify" and "easy to classify" using a classification error threshold of more than 15%. Polyp diameter, height, and subjective conspicuity and the proportion of time viewed were compared between groups., Results: Eye tracking revealed that 97% of false-negative polyp diagnoses were nonetheless preceded by the reader observing the polyp. The difficult polyps were significantly smaller than the easy polyps (mean diameter, 5.4 vs 8.2 mm, respectively p = 0.014) and were subjectively less conspicuous (median score, 4 vs 2; p = 0.0032). Readers spent proportionally less time viewing difficult polyps than viewing easy polyps (29.0% of the time they were on-screen vs 42.6%, respectively; p = 0.01) regardless of the presence of CAD., Conclusion: Even small and subjectively inconspicuous polyps attract reader gaze, but they are nonetheless ignored. These errors are made rapidly even with CAD. Efforts to improve reader performance at CTC should focus on decision making rather than detection alone.

Objective: We aimed to identify the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) on visual search and performance in CT Colonography (CTC) of inexperienced and experienced readers., Methods: Fifteen endoluminal CTC examinations were recorded, each with one polyp, and two videos were generated, one with and one without a CAD mark. Forty-two readers (17 experienced, 25 inexperienced) interpreted the videos during infrared visual search recording. CAD markers and polyps were treated as regions of interest in data processing. This multi-reader, multi-case study was analysed using multilevel modelling., Results: CAD drew readers' attention to polyps faster, accelerating identification times: median 'time to first pursuit' was 0.48 s (IQR 0.27 to 0.87 s) with CAD, versus 0.58 s (IQR 0.35 to 1.06 s) without. For inexperienced readers, CAD also held visual attention for longer. All visual search metrics used to assess visual gaze behaviour demonstrated statistically significant differences when "with" and "without" CAD were compared. A significant increase in the number of correct polyp identifications across all readers was seen with CAD (74 % without CAD, 87 % with CAD; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: CAD significantly alters visual search and polyp identification in readers viewing three-dimensional endoluminal CTC. For polyp and CAD marker pursuit times, CAD generally exerted a larger effect on inexperienced readers., Key Points: • Visual gaze is attracted by computer-assisted detection (CAD) marks on polyps • Inexperienced readers' gaze is affected more by CAD than experienced readers. • CAD marks could mean that the unannotated endoluminal surface is relatively neglected. • Correct polyp identification is increased significantly by CAD.

Purpose: To identify and compare key stages of the visual process in experienced and inexperienced readers and to examine how these processes are used to search a moving three-dimensional ( 3D three-dimensional ) image and their relationship to false-negative errors., Materials and Methods: Institutional review board research ethics approval was granted to use anonymized computed tomographic (CT) colonographic data from previous studies and to obtain eye-tracking data from volunteers. Sixty-five radiologists (27 experienced, 38 inexperienced) interpreted 23 endoluminal 3D three-dimensional CT colonographic videos. Eye movements were recorded by using eye tracking with a desk-mounted tracker. Readers indicated when they saw a polyp by clicking a computer mouse. Polyp location and boundary on each video frame were quantified and gaze data were related to the polyp boundary for each individual reader and case. Predefined metrics were quantified and used to describe and compare visual search patterns between experienced and inexperienced readers by using multilevel modeling., Results: Time to first pursuit was significantly shorter in experienced readers (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% confidence interval: 1.04, 1.44]; P = .017) but other metrics were not significantly different. Regardless of expertise, metrics such as assessment, identification period, and pursuit times were extended in videos where polyps were visible on screen for longer periods of time. In 97% (760 of 787) of observations, readers correctly pursued polyps., Conclusion: Experienced readers had shorter time to first eye pursuit, but many other characteristics of eye tracking were similar between experienced and inexperienced readers. Readers pursued polyps in 97% of observations, which indicated that errors during interpretation of 3D three-dimensional CT colonography in this study occurred in either the discovery or the recognition phase, but rarely in the scanning phase of radiologic image inspection., (© RSNA, 2014.)

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of a method of automatic coregistration of the endoluminal surfaces at computed tomographic (CT) colonography performed on separate occasions to facilitate identification of polyps in patients undergoing polyp surveillance., Materials and Methods: Institutional review board and HIPAA approval were obtained. A registration algorithm that was designed to coregister the coordinates of endoluminal colonic surfaces on images from prone and supine CT colonographic acquisitions was used to match polyps in sequential studies in patients undergoing polyp surveillance. Initial and follow-up CT colonographic examinations in 26 patients (35 polyps) were selected and the algorithm was tested by means of two methods, the longitudinal method (polyp coordinates from the initial prone and supine acquisitions were used to identify the expected polyp location automatically at follow-up CT colonography) and the consistency method (polyp coordinates from the initial supine acquisition were used to identify polyp location on images from the initial prone acquisition, then on those for follow-up prone and follow-up supine acquisitions). Two observers measured the Euclidean distance between true and expected polyp locations, and mean per-patient registration accuracy was calculated. Segments with and without collapse were compared by using the Kruskal-Wallace test, and the relationship between registration error and temporal separation was investigated by using the Pearson correlation., Results: Coregistration was achieved for all 35 polyps by using both longitudinal and consistency methods. Mean ± standard deviation Euclidean registration error for the longitudinal method was 17.4 mm ± 12.1 and for the consistency method, 26.9 mm ± 20.8. There was no significant difference between these results and the registration error when prone and supine acquisitions in the same study were compared (16.9 mm ± 17.6; P = .451)., Conclusion: Automatic endoluminal coregistration by using an algorithm at initial CT colonography allowed prediction of endoluminal polyp location at subsequent CT colonography, thereby facilitating detection of known polyps in patients undergoing CT colonographic surveillance.

This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp  ≥  6  mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Aim: To describe our experience using a 5 year audit of computed tomography colonography (CTC) practice and identify factors that influence diagnostic performance to guide implementation in other centres., Material and Methods: Consecutive patients referred for CTC at a single institution over a 5 year period were identified, and reporting rates and positive predictive value (PPV) calculated for small polyps, large polyps, and colorectal cancer. Diagnostic performance was compared using the Chi-squared test, and trends over time were examined with logistic regression. The effect of faecal tagging and an intravenous spasmolytic were investigated using Fisher's exact test., Results: In total, 4355 CTC examinations were performed. Overall reporting rates and PPV were 17% and 92%, respectively. Negative predictive value (NPV) for cancer was 99.9%. A significant decrease in reporting rate (p < 0.001) was accompanied by an increase in PPV for small polyps (p = 0.02) following the introduction of faecal tagging. Adequacy rates for CTC improved over time (96% to 99%), with improved adequacy rates when using a spasmolytic, 98% versus 96% without. A significant difference in reporting rates, but not PPV, was found between radiologists., Conclusion: Accurate colonic investigation using CTC can be delivered safely to a high-risk patient population at a single centre. Faecal tagging and an intravenous spasmolytic improve diagnostic performance., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To examine use of CT colonography (CTC) in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) and investigate detection rates., Design: Retrospective analysis of routinely coded BCSP data. Guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt)-positive screenees undergoing CTC from June 2006 to July 2012 as their first-line colonic investigation were included. Abnormalities found at CTC, subsequent polyp, adenoma and cancer detection and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. Detection rates were compared with those observed in gFOBt-positive screenees investigated by colonoscopy. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with variable detection., Results: 2731 screenees underwent CTC. Colorectal cancer (CRC) or polyps were suspected in 1027 individuals (37.6%; 95% CI 33.8% to 41.4%); 911 of these underwent confirmatory testing. 124 screenees had CRC (4.5%) and 533 had polyps (19.5%), 468 adenomatous (17.1%). Overall detection was 24.1% (95% CI 21.5% to 26.6%) for CRC or polyps and 21.7% (95% CI 19.2% to 24.1%) for CRC or adenoma. Advanced neoplasia was detected in 504 screenees (18.5%; 95% CI 16.1% to 20.8%). PPV for CRC or polyp was 72.1% (95% CI 66.6% to 77.6%). By comparison, 9.0% of 72 817 screenees undergoing colonoscopy had cancer and 50.6% had polyps; advanced neoplasia was detected in 32.7%. CTC detection rates and PPV were higher at centres with experienced radiologists (>1000 examinations) and at high-volume centres (>175 cases/radiologist/annum). Centres using three-dimensional interpretation detected more neoplasia., Conclusions: In the BCSP, detection rates after positive gFOBt are lower for CTC than colonoscopy, although populations undergoing the two tests are different. Centres with more experienced radiologists have higher detection and accuracy. Rigorous quality assurance of BCSP radiology is needed.

Purpose: To perform external validation of a computer-assisted registration algorithm for prone and supine computed tomographic (CT) colonography and to compare the results with those of an existing centerline method., Materials and Methods: All contributing centers had institutional review board approval; participants provided informed consent. A validation sample of CT colonographic examinations of 51 patients with 68 polyps (6-55 mm) was selected from a publicly available, HIPAA compliant, anonymized archive. No patients were excluded because of poor preparation or inadequate distension. Corresponding prone and supine polyp coordinates were recorded, and endoluminal surfaces were registered automatically by using a computer algorithm. Two observers independently scored three-dimensional endoluminal polyp registration success. Results were compared with those obtained by using the normalized distance along the colonic centerline (NDACC) method. Pairwise Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare gross registration error and McNemar tests were used to compare polyp conspicuity., Results: Registration was possible in all 51 patients, and 136 paired polyp coordinates were generated (68 polyps) to test the algorithm. Overall mean three-dimensional polyp registration error (mean ± standard deviation, 19.9 mm ± 20.4) was significantly less than that for the NDACC method (mean, 27.4 mm ± 15.1; P = .001). Accuracy was unaffected by colonic segment (P = .76) or luminal collapse (P = .066). During endoluminal review by two observers (272 matching tasks, 68 polyps, prone to supine and supine to prone coordinates), 223 (82%) polyp matches were visible (120° field of view) compared with just 129 (47%) when the NDACC method was used (P < .001). By using multiplanar visualization, 48 (70%) polyps were visible after scrolling ± 15 mm in any multiplanar axis compared with 16 (24%) for NDACC (P < .001)., Conclusion: Computer-assisted registration is more accurate than the NDACC method for mapping the endoluminal surface and matching the location of polyps in corresponding prone and supine CT colonographic acquisitions.

Purpose: To develop an eye-tracking method applicable to three-dimensional (3D) images, where the abnormality is both moving and changing in size., Materials and Methods: Research ethics committee approval was granted to record eye-tracking data from six inexperienced readers who inspected eight short (<30 seconds) endoluminal fly-through videos extracted from computed tomographic (CT) colonography examinations. Cases included true-positive and false-positive polyp detections from a previous study (polyp diameters, 5-25 mm). Eye tracking was performed with a desk-mounted tracker, and readers indicated when they saw a polyp with a mouse click. The polyp location on each video frame was quantified subsequently by using a circular mask. Gaze data related to each video frame were calculated relative to the visible polyp boundary and used to identify eye movements that pursue a polyp target as it changes size and position during fly-through. Gaze data were then related to positive polyp detections by readers., Results: Tracking eye gaze on moving 3D images was technically feasible. Gaze was successfully classified by using pursuit analysis, and pursuit-based gaze metrics were able to help discriminate different reader search behaviors and methods of allocating visual attention during polyp identification. Of a total of 16 perceptual errors, 15 were recognition errors. There was only one visual search error. The largest polyp (25 mm) was seen but not recognized by five of six readers., Conclusion: Tracking a reader's gaze during endoluminal interpretation of 3D data sets is technically feasible and can be described with pursuit-based metrics. Perceptual errors can be classified into visual search errors and recognition errors. Recognition errors are more frequent in inexperienced readers.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of computer-aided detection (CAD) for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) when employed as either primary-reader or second-reader paradigms in a low-prevalence screening population., Methods: Ninety screening patients underwent same-day CTC and colonoscopy. Four readers prospectively interpreted all CTC data sets using a second-reader paradigm (unassisted interpretation followed immediately by CAD assistance). Three months later, randomized anonymous data sets were re-interpreted by all readers using a primary-reader paradigm (only CAD prompts evaluated)., Results: Compared with the average per-patient sensitivity for unassisted interpretation (0.57), both CAD paradigms significantly increased sensitivity: 0.78 (p < 0.001) for the second-reader paradigm and 0.83 (p < 0.001) for the primary-reader paradigm. There was no significant difference between CAD paradigms (p = 0.25). The average per-patient specificity for polyps ≥6 mm was significantly higher using the primary-reader paradigm than the second-reader paradigm (0.90 vs. 0.83, respectively, p = 0.006), with ROC AUCs of 0.83 and 0.68, respectively. Reading time using CAD as a primary-reader paradigm (median 1.4 min) was significantly shorter than both unassisted (median 4.0 min, p < 0.001) and second-reader paradigms (median 5.5 min, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: CAD improves radiologist sensitivity in screening patients when used as either a second- or primary-reader paradigm, although the latter may improve specificity and efficiency more.

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is being implemented increasingly in the USA and Europe, and in many centers it has become the radiological technique of choice for imaging the whole colorectum. Although high diagnostic accuracy has been demonstrated in both screening and symptomatic populations, controversy persists regarding implementation, who should interpret the examination, and its cost effectiveness, particularly in the context of primary colorectal cancer screening. Published research in recent years has demonstrated efficacy in a wide range of patient groups, striking technical improvements, and high levels of patient acceptability. New developments continue in the fields of computer aided detection, digital cleansing, and integration into positron emission tomography. The purpose of this review is to bring the reader up-to-date with the latest developments in CT colonography, in particular, those of the last year.

Aim: To obtain information regarding the demographics of attendees of computed tomography colonography (CTC) training workshops organized by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), in particular their prior expertise and current practice., Materials and Methods: Attendees at five CTC training workshops conducted in Edinburgh (UK), Malmo (Sweden), Amsterdam (Netherlands), Pisa and Stresa (Italy) between February 2007 and April 2010 completed an online questionnaire. Responses were collated and descriptive statistics produced., Results: Three hundred and forty-eight delegates responded; a response rate of 73%. There was wide geographical variability encompassing 20 European member-states and seven countries outside Europe. The overwhelming majority were radiologists (336; 97%). Of the respondents, 299 (86%) were already interpreting CTC in clinical practice but of these, 158 (54%) had no prior formal training in CTC whereas 21 (8%) had attended a previous workshop. Furthermore, of those reporting CTC, 227 (76%) had interpreted fewer than 50 cases., Conclusions: Despite political imperatives for other groups to interpret CTC, the vast majority of those attending training are radiologists. Worryingly, a significant proportion of these are apparently reporting CTC in clinical practice without adequate training., (Copyright © 2011 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Computer-aided detection (CAD) for CT colonography (CTC) has been developed to detect benign polyps in asymptomatic patients. We aimed to determine whether such a CAD system can also detect cancer in symptomatic patients., Methods: CTC data from 137 symptomatic patients subsequently proven to have colorectal cancer were analysed by a CAD system at 4 different sphericity settings: 0, 50, 75 and 100. CAD prompts were classified by an observer as either true-positive if overlapping a cancer or false-positive if elsewhere. Colonoscopic data were used to aid matching., Results: Of 137 cancers, CAD identified 124 (90.5%), 122 (89.1%), 119 (86.9%) and 102 (74.5%) at a sphericity of 0, 50, 75 and 100, respectively. A substantial proportion of cancers were detected on either the prone or supine acquisition alone. Of 125 patients with prone and supine acquisitions, 39.3%, 38.3%, 43.2% and 50.5% of cancers were detected on a single acquisition at a sphericity of 0, 50, 75 and 100, respectively. CAD detected three cancers missed by radiologists at the original clinical interpretation. False-positive prompts decreased with increasing sphericity value (median 65, 57, 45, 24 per patient at values of 0, 50, 75, 100, respectively) but many patients were poorly prepared., Conclusion: CAD can detect symptomatic colorectal cancer but must be applied to both prone and supine acquisitions for best performance.

Purpose: To quantify the changes in reader performance levels, if any, during interpretation of computed tomographic (CT) colonographic data when a computer-aided detection (CAD) system is used as a second or concurrent reader., Materials and Methods: After institutional review board approval was obtained, 16 experienced radiologists searched for polyps in 112 patients, 56 of whom had 132 polyps. Each case was interpreted on three separate occasions by using an unassisted (without CAD), second-read CAD, or concurrent CAD reading paradigm. The reading paradigm and case order were randomized, with a minimal interval of 1 month between consecutive interpretations. The readers' findings were compared with the reference-truth interpretation. The mean per-patient sensitivity and mean per-patient specificity with CAD were compared with those achieved with unassisted reading. An increase in per-patient sensitivity was considered to be clinically more important than an equivalent decrease in specificity., Results: The mean per-patient sensitivity for identification of patients with polyps of any size increased significantly with use of second-read CAD (mean increase, 7.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.0%, 9.8%) and concurrent CAD (mean increase, 4.5%; 95% CI: 0.8%, 8.2%). The mean per-patient specificity did not decrease significantly with use of second-read CAD (mean decrease, -2.5%; 95% CI: -5.2%, 0.1%) or concurrent CAD (mean decrease, -2.2%; 95% CI: -4.6%, 0.2%). With analysis restricted to patients with polyps 6 mm or larger, the benefit in sensitivity with second-read CAD remained (mean increase, 7.1%; 95% CI: 3.0%, 11.1%), whereas the increase with concurrent CAD was not significant (mean increase, 4.2%; 95% CI: -0.5%, 8.9%). Use of second-read CAD significantly increased the per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger (mean increase, 9.0%; 98.3% CI: 4.9%, 12.8%) and polyps 5 mm or smaller (mean increase, 5.9%; 98.3% CI: 3.2%, 9.1%), but use of concurrent CAD increased the per-polyp sensitivity for only those polyps 5 mm or smaller (mean increase, 4.8%; 98.3% CI: 2.2%, 7.9%)., Conclusion: Use of second-read CAD significantly improves readers' per-patient and per-polyp detection. Concurrent CAD is less effective., Supplemental Material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100354/-/DC1., (© RSNA, 2010)

With the recent publication of international computed tomography (CT) colonography standards, which aim to improve quality of examinations, this review informs radiologists about the significance of flat polyps (adenomas and hyperplastic polyps) in colorectal cancer pathways. We describe flat polyp classification systems and propose how flat polyps should be reported to ensure patient management strategies are based on polyp morphology as well as size. Indeed, consistency when describing flat polyps is of increasing importance given the strengthening links between CT colonography and endoscopy., (Copyright © 2010 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: CT colonography without bowel preparation is a safer and better-tolerated alternative to full laxation protocols, but comparative sensitivity and specificity are potentially reduced. Uptake of (18)F-FDG by colonic neoplasia is well described, and combining PET with nonlaxative CT colonography could improve accuracy. The purpose was to prospectively test the technical feasibility and acceptability of combined nonlaxative PET/CT colonography in patients at higher risk of colorectal neoplasia and to provide pilot data on diagnostic performance., Methods: Fifty-six patients (median age, 64 y; 30 women) at high risk of colonic neoplasia underwent nonlaxative PET/CT colonography with barium fecal tagging within 2 wk of scheduled colonoscopy. Colonic segmental distension was graded 1 (poor) to 3 (good). A radiologist, experienced in CT colonography, and nuclear medicine physician in consensus analyzed the datasets. The diagnostic performance for standalone CT colonography and combined PET/CT colonography was compared with the reference colonoscopy. Patient experience for 25 items (each scored from 1 to 7) pertaining to satisfaction, worry, and physical discomfort was canvassed after both PET/CT colonography and colonoscopy., Results: Distension was good in 298 of 334 segments (89%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 85%-92%). Patients experienced more physical discomfort during colonoscopy (median, 4; interquartile range [IQR], 2-7) than during PET/CT colonography (median, 5; IQR, 3-7; P = 0.03) and were more willing to undergo PET/CT colonography again (36/43 [84%; 95% CI, 73%-95%] vs. 31/43 [72%; 95% CI, 59%-86%]; P = 0.001). Twenty-one patients had 54 polyps according to colonoscopy (10 with at least 1 polyp >or=6 mm and 8 with at least 1 polyp >or=10 mm). Of 14 polyps 6 mm or greater, 12 (86%; 95% CI, 67%-100%) were (18)F-FDG-avid, including all those 10 mm or greater (mean standardized uptake value, 10.1). CT colonography sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was 92.9% (95% CI, 79.4%-100%) and was not improved by the addition of PET. However, combined PET/CT colonography review improved per-patient positive predictive value for a polyp 10 mm or greater from 73% (95% CI, 39-92) to 100% (95% CI, 60-100)., Conclusion: In this feasibility study, simultaneous PET acquisition during nonlaxative CT colonography is technically feasible, is well tolerated, and potentially improves specificity.

Aim: To investigate performance of computed-assisted detection (CAD)-assisted radiographers interpreting computed tomography colonography (CTC) in routine practice., Materials and Methods: Three hundred and three consecutive symptomatic patients underwent CTC. Examinations were double-read by trained radiographers using primary two-dimensional/three-dimensional (2D/3D) analysis supplemented by "second reader" CAD. Radiographers recorded colonic neoplasia, interpretation times, and patient management strategy code (S0, inadequate; S1, normal; S2, 6-9 mm polyp; S3, > or = 10 mm polyp; S4, cancer; S5, diverticular stricture) for each examination. Strategies were compared to the reference standard using kappa statistic, interpretation times using paired t-test, learning curves using logistic regression and Pearson's correlation coefficient., Results: Of 303 examinations, 69 (23%) were abnormal. CAD-assisted radiographers detected 17/17 (100%) cancers, 21/28 (72%) polyps > or = 10 mm and 42/60 (70%) 6-9 mm polyps. The overall agreement between radiographers and the reference management strategy was good (kappa 0.72; CI: 0.65, 0.78) with agreement for S1 strategy in 189/211 (90%) exams; S2 in 19/27 (70%); S3 in 12/19 (63%); S4 in 17/17 (100%); S5 in 5/6 (83%). The mean interpretation time was 17 min (SD = 11) compared with 8 min (SD = 3.5) for radiologists. There was no learning curve for recording correct strategies (OR 0.88; p = 0.12) but a significant reduction in interpretation times, mean 14 and 31 min (last/first 50 exams; -0.46; p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Routine CTC interpretation by radiographers is effective for initial triage of patients with cancer, but independent reporting is currently not recommended., (Copyright 2009 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To retrospectively describe the characteristics of polyps incorrectly dismissed by radiologists despite appropriate computer-aided detection (CAD) prompting during computed tomographic (CT) colonography., Materials and Methods: Ethics committee approval and patient informed consent were obtained from institutions that provided the data sets used in this HIPAA-compliant study. A total of 111 polyps that had a diameter of at least 6 mm and were detected with CAD were collated from three previous studies in which researchers investigated radiologist performance with and without CAD (total, 25 readers). Two new observers graded each polyp with predefined criteria, including polyp size, morphology, and location; data set quality; ease of visualization; tagging use and polyp coating; colonic curvature; CAD mark obscuration; and number of false-positive findings. The 86 polyps that were missed before CAD (those that were unreported by one or more original readers) were divided into those that remained unreported after CAD (no CAD gain, n = 36) and those that were reported correctly by at least one additional reader (CAD gain, n = 50). Logistic-regression analysis and the Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare the results of both groups with each other and with a control group of 25 polyps, all of which were detected by readers without CAD., Results: Before CAD, polyps 10 mm in diameter or larger, those that were rated easy to visualize, and those that were uncoated by tagged fluid were less likely to be missed (72%, 76%, and 80% of control polyps vs 43%, 43%, and 59% of missed polyps, respectively; P < .001, P < .01, and P < .03, respectively). After CAD, the odds of CAD gain decreased with increasing polyp size (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.85, 1.00; P = .04) and irregular morphology (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval: 0.08, 0.92; P = .04)., Conclusion: Larger irregular polyps are a common source of incorrect radiologist dismissal, despite correct CAD prompting.

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.

This paper aims to quantify changes in colonic length and positional change between supine and prone CT colonography (CTC) studies in order to aid development of image registration techniques. CTC studies in 20 patients (10 men and 10 women) with technically adequate distension were analysed using an image analysis workstation. Spatial co-ordinates of colonic landmarks were determined in both prone and supine orientations using a three-dimensional colon model view and centreline positions. Change in the co-ordinate position of colonic segments between supine and prone scans was calculated using the superior mesenteric artery as a fixed point of reference. There was no significant difference in total colonic length for subjects between prone and supine positions, nor any significant difference overall when men were compared with women. However, significant differences between sexes for individual segments were found; the ascending colon, descending colon and rectum were significantly longer in men and the sigmoid colon was longer in women. The transverse colon was the most mobile segment during positional change, with an average displacement between supine and prone scans of 4.6 cm (standard deviation, 0.48 cm) for men and 4.1 cm (standard deviation, 0.4 cm) for women. Consistent patterns of colonic positional change between supine and prone orientations were present and were thought to be most likely the result of abdominal compression. We concluded that there is minimal variation in colonic length between prone and supine orientations. Consistent patterns of colonic displacement with patient position suggest that predictable forces act upon the colon. Understanding these forces will facilitate image registration for CT colonography.

Objective: The objective of our study was to investigate whether an increasing number of computer-aided detection (CAD) false-positives decreases reader sensitivity, specificity, and confidence for nonexpert readers of CT colonography (CTC)., Materials and Methods: Fifty CTC data sets (29 men; mean age, 65 years), 25 of which contained 35 polyps > or = 5 mm, were selected in which CAD had 100% polyp sensitivity at two sphericity settings (0 and 75) but differed in the number of false-positives. The data sets were read by five readers twice: once at each sphericity setting. Sensitivity, specificity, report time, and confidence before and after second-read CAD were compared using the paired exact and Student's t test, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated using reader confidence (1-100) in correct case classification (normal or abnormal)., Results: CAD generated a mean of 42 (range, 3-118) and 15 (range, 1-36) false-positives at a sphericity of 0 and 75, respectively. CAD at both settings increased per-patient sensitivity from 82% to 87% (p = 0.03) and per-polyp sensitivity by 8% and 10% for a sphericity of 0 and 75, respectively (p < 0.001). Specificity decreased from 84% to 79% (sphericity 0 and 75, p = 0.03 and 0.07). There was no difference in sensitivity, specificity, or reader confidence between sphericity settings (p = 1.0, 1.0, 0.11, respectively). The area under the ROC curve was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.70-0.86) and 0.77 (0.68-0.85) for a sphericity of 0 and 75, respectively. CAD added a median of 4.4 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 2.7-6.5 minutes) and 2.2 minutes (IQR, 1.2-4.0 minutes) for a sphericity of 0 and 75, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. CAD has the potential to increase the sensitivity of readers inexperienced with CTC, although specificity may be reduced. An increased number of CAD-generated false-positives does not negate any beneficial effect but does reduce efficiency.

The effect of field of view on mucosal visualisation and reader efficiency during three-dimensional endoluminal CT colonography (CTC) was investigated. Twenty CTC datasets were reviewed at standard 90-degree and "wide" 140-degree viewing angles using customised viewing software (V3D colon; Viatronix), which listed number and size of missed mucosal areas ("missed regions tool") and percentage mucosal visualisation. We compared: (1) unidirectional and bidirectional flythrough using 140- versus 90-degree viewing angles; (2) reader analysis time comparing unidirectional 140-degree flythrough versus bidirectional 90-degree flythrough; (3) paired image snapshots of 12 polyps taken at each field of view were reviewed to assess conspicuity. All patients underwent conventional colonoscopy. Bidirectional 140-degree review reduced the numbers of missed areas by between eight- and 40-fold depending on size category, including those >1,000 mm(2), compared with standard 90-degree bidirectional flythrough (P < 0.001). Combined prone-supine unidirectional 140-degree flythrough and missed area review was 3.8 min faster than 90-degree bidirectional review (9.3 versus 5.5 min, P < 0.0001) for the same surface visualisation. When viewed as pairs, polyps were rated more conspicuous with a 90-degree field of view, P = 0.03. Wide-angle (140-degree) CTC can reduce both numbers of missed areas and review times. However, this may be at the expense of polyp conspicuity.

Aim: To investigate the effect of different colour three-dimensional (3D) displays on polyp detection at virtual colonoscopy (VC)., Methods: Five VC trained observers were shown "brief flashes" (lasting 0.2s) of 125 3D endoluminal image snap-shots, repeated for each of six display colours (750 images total). One hundred images contained a single polyp (diameter range 5-42 mm) and 25 contained no polyp ("normal"). Images were reviewed in random order over five reading sessions, readers recording either normality or presence and location of a polyp. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine any influence of colour on polyp detection stratified according to polyp size (medium 5-9 mm/large >or=10mm). The kappa statistic was used to assess effect of colour on observer agreement., Results: Individual reader polyp detection rates ranged between 75-94%. Compared to the default pink "soft tissue" display, the odds of polyp detection were 0.65 (CI 0.41,1.01) for green, 0.82 (0.53,1.30) for blue, 1 (0.63,1.59) for red, 1.12 (0.7,1.79) for monochrome, and 1.15 for yellow (0.72,1.84). Overall, there was no significant difference between the displays (p=0.11). Including normal cases, there was no overall difference in correct case classification between the six colours (p=0.44). The odds of detecting large versus medium polyps was significantly greater for 3/5 observers; odds ratio (OR) 2.84-10.1, although unaffected by display colour (p=0.3)., Conclusion: The background colour display generally has a minimal effect on polyp detection at VC, although green should be avoided.

The purpose was to determine the accuracy of polyp measurement by endoscopy and CT. A colonic phantom was constructed containing 12 simulated polyps of known diameter. Polyp diameter was estimated during endoscopy by two observers independently. The phantom was then scanned using a 64-detector-row machine and diameter estimated by a further two observers independently, using 2D and 3D visualisation methods. All measurements were obtained twice. Bland-Altman statistics were used to assess agreement between observers' estimates and the reference diameter. The mean difference between observers' measurements and the reference diameter was smallest for estimates made using 3D CT (-0.09 mm and -0.03 mm) and greatest for endoscopy (-1.10 mm and -1.19 mm), with 2D CT intermediate. However, 95% limits of agreement were largest for 3D CT estimates (-4.38 mm to 4.20 mm). Estimates by 2D CT consistently overestimated polyp diameter, whereas endoscopy consistently underestimated diameter. In contrast, measurements by 3D CT were a combination of over- and under-estimates, with a tendency for disagreement to increase with the size of the polyp. The effect of observer experience was small and repeatability was best for 2D CT. Measurement error was encountered with all three modalities tested. Estimates made by 2D CT were believed to offer the best compromise overall.

Aim: To investigate the effect of a virtual colonoscopy (VC) computed-assisted detection (CAD) system on polyp detection by trained radiographers., Materials and Methods: Four radiographers trained in VC interpretation and utilization of CAD systems read a total of 62 endoscopically validated VC examinations containing 150 polyps (size range 5-50mm) in four sessions, recording any polyps found and the examination interpretation time, first without and then with the addition of CAD as a "second reader". After a temporal separation of 6 weeks to reduce recall bias, VC examinations were re-read using "concurrent reader" CAD. Interpretation times, polyp detection, and number of false-positives were compared between the different reader paradigms using paired t and paired exact tests., Results: Overall, use of "second reader" CAD significantly improved polyp detection by 12% (p<0.001, CI 6%,17%)) from 48 to 60%. There was no significant improvement using CAD as a concurrent reader (p=0.20; difference of 7%, CI -3%, 16%) and no significant overall difference in recorded false-positives with second reader or concurrent CAD paradigms compared with unassisted reading (p=0.25 and 0.65, respectively). The mean interpretation time was 21.7 min for unassisted reading, 29.6 (p<0.001) min for second reader and 19.1 min (p=0.12) for concurrent reading paradigms., Conclusion: CAD, when used as a second reader, can significantly improve radiographer reading performance with only a moderate increase in interpretation times.

Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the effect of increasing numbers of computer-aided detection (CAD)-generated false-positive (FP) marks on reader specificity and reporting times by using computed tomographic (CT) colonography in a low-prevalence screening population., Materials and Methods: Ethics committee approval and informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. Four readers each read 48 data sets (26 men, 22 women; mean age, 57 years) from a screening population (three containing polyps) without CAD application, followed by review of the CAD output and recorded findings and diagnostic confidence. The 45 data sets that were designated as normal were chosen such that 22 generated 15 or fewer FP CAD marks and 23 generated more than 15 FP CAD marks. Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated with and without CAD. The relationships between the number of CAD FP marks and reader confidence, reporting times, and correct data set classification were analyzed by using linear and logistic regression., Results: Across all readers, CAD resulted in four additional FP detections. Overall reader sensitivity and specificity (6-mm polyp threshold) before and after CAD application were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43, 0.95) versus 0.83 (95% CI: 0.52, 0.98) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.98) versus 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.96), respectively. The area under the ROC curve increased from 0.57 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.80) to 0.61 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.80). There was no correlation between an increasing number of CAD FP marks and reader confidence (P = .71) or correct study classification (P = .23), but there was a positive correlation with CAD-assisted reading times (0.06 [95% CI: 0.02, 0.10], P = .002)., Conclusion: Increasing numbers of CAD FP marks did not adversely influence correct reader study classification or diagnostic confidence, although reporting times did increase.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the incremental effect of focused training on observer performance when using computer-assisted detection (CAD) software to interpret CT colonography (CTC). Six radiologists who were relatively inexperienced with CTC interpretation underwent 1 day of focused training before reading 20 patient datasets with the assistance of CAD software (ColonCAR 1.3, Medicsight PLC). Sensitivity, specificity and interpretation times were determined and compared with previous performance when reading the same datasets but without the benefit of focused training, using the binomial exact test and Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Per-polyp sensitivity improved after training by 18% overall (95% confidence interval (CI): 14-24%, p<0.001) and was greatest for polyps of 6-9 mm (26%, 95% CI: 18-34%, p<0.001). Absolute sensitivity was 23% (9-36%), 51% (33-71%) and 74% (44-100%) for polyps of or=10 mm, respectively. Specificity fell significantly after focused training (median of 5.5 false positives per 20 datasets (interquartile range (IQR): 4-6) post-training vs median of 2.5 (IQR: 1-5) pre-training, p = 0.03). Interpretation time also increased significantly after training (from a median of 9.3 min (IQR: 9.3-14.5 min) to a median of 17.1 min (IQR: 15.4-19.4 min), p = 0.03). In conclusion, one day of training increases observer polyp sensitivity when using CAD for CTC at the expense of increased reporting time and reduction in specificity.

Purpose: To prospectively compare the diagnostic performance and time efficiency of both second and concurrent computer-aided detection (CAD) reading paradigms for retrospectively obtained computed tomographic (CT) colonography data sets by using consensus reading (three radiologists) of colonoscopic findings as a reference standard., Materials and Methods: Ethical permission, HIPAA compliance (for U.S. institutions), and patient consent were obtained from all institutions for use of CT colonography data sets in this study. Ten radiologists each read 25 CT colonography data sets (12 men, 13 women; mean age, 61 years) containing 69 polyps (28 were 1-5 mm, 41 were >or=6 mm) by using workstations integrated with CAD software. Reading was randomized to either "second read" CAD (applied only after initial unassisted assessment) or "concurrent read" CAD (applied at the start of assessment). Data sets were reread 6 weeks later by using the opposing paradigm. Polyp sensitivity and reading times were compared by using multilevel logistic and linear regression, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated., Results: Compared with the unassisted read, odds of improved polyp (>or=6 mm) detection were 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0, 2.2) and 1.3 (95% CI: 0.9, 1.9) by using CAD as second and concurrent reader, respectively. Detection odds by using CAD concurrently were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.59, 1.3) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.01) those of second read CAD, excluding and including polyps 1-5 mm, respectively. The concurrent read took 2.9 minutes (95% CI: -3.8, -1.9) less than did second read. The mean areas under the ROC curve (95% CI) for the unassisted read, second read CAD, and concurrent read CAD were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.87), 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.90), and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.92), respectively., Conclusion: CAD is more time efficient when used concurrently than when used as a second reader, with similar sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger. However, use of second read CAD maximizes sensitivity, particularly for smaller lesions., ((c) RSNA, 2007.)

Objectives: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis of mucosal disease, but has a recognized "miss rate" for polyps probably because some lesions lie in areas of the colonic surface that do not enter the field of view. Using CT colonography (CTC) simulation this pilot study aimed to determine how much colonic surface is visualized with a standard, modern optical colonoscope (field of view 140 degrees ) with or without the addition of a retrograde viewing auxiliary imaging device (RVAID; 135 degrees ) and of a wide-angle (170 degrees ) colonoscope., Methods: Supine CTC datasets for 20 patients were reviewed with customized CTC software that calculated the percentage of colonic surface seen and number and area of nonvisualized "missed" areas at a unidirectional three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal flythrough, approximating the view obtained at optical colonoscopy. The field of view could be varied from 0-180 degrees . The combination of a colonoscope with RVAID was simulated by an additional flythrough facing the rectum., Results: Mean colonic surface area was 2,743 +/- 759 cm2. Percentage colonic surface visualized at simulated optical colonoscopy with a 90 degrees , 140 degrees , and 170 degrees field of view was 68.0 +/- 5.2%, 86.6 +/- 3.3%, and 92.2 +/- 3.3%, respectively, P < 0.001. Simulation of a 140 degrees colonoscope with an RVAID resulted in almost complete surface visualization, 98.7 +/- 0.5%, with total missed area reduced 10-fold compared with a 170 degrees colonoscope, P < 0.001., Conclusion: CTC simulated 140 degrees optical colonoscopy visualizes over 85% of the colonic surface. 170 degrees colonoscopy provides a modest reduction in missed surface and the simulated addition of RVAIDs appears beneficial.

Meta-analysis of data from studies of CT colonography suggests that it has excellent per-patient average sensitivity and average specificity for detection of adenomatous polyps and cancer. However, while its potential as a screening test is undoubted, there are several current limitations that will need to be overcome before it can be considered seriously by health policy makers. These revolve around issues of generalisability, which is inhibited most by a lack of trained observers and access to CT scanners, and a paucity of data relating to cost-effectiveness. Whether offering CT colonography as an alternative to competing strategies will genuinely enhance compliance also needs further and more detailed attention.

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of changing sphericity filter values on performance of a computer assisted detection (CAD) system for CT colonography for data with and without fecal tagging. Colonography data from 138 patients with 317 validated polyps were divided into those with (86) and without (52) fecal tagging. Polyp coordinates were established by three observers and datasets analysed subsequently by a proprietary CAD system used at four discrete sphericity filter settings. Prompts were compared with the known coordinates in order to determine sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity was highest at low sphericity; of 164 polyps 6 mm or more, 144 (87.8%) were detected at sphericity 0.3, and 132 (80.1%) at sphericity 0.9. Of 42 polyps measuring 10 mm or more, 40 (95.2%) were detected at sphericity 0.3, and 36 (85.7%) at sphericity 0.9. There was no significant difference in sensitivity for tagged and un-tagged data but specificity was reduced in tagged data at low sphericity and significantly reduced in untagged data at high sphericity. CAD had a sensitivity of 95.2% for polyps measuring 1 cm or more and 87.8% for polyps 6 mm or more when used at a sphericity setting of 0.3. Higher sphericity settings increased specificity while reducing sensitivity. The bowel preparation used significantly impacts on specificity.

Aim: To investigate whether automated diameter assessment was feasible for CT colonography., Materials and Methods: Two experienced observers independently measured the maximum diameter of 50 polyps (colonoscopic reference size range 5-12 mm) from colonography datasets using conventionally placed software callipers and a variety of two-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) window settings (colon, abdominal, bone, lung), and also three-dimensional (3D) perspective rendering. Polyps were also measured using automated polyp-segmentation software. Agreement between observers and with the colonoscopic reference measurement was determined using Bland-Altman, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney U analyses., Results: Inter-observer agreement was similar for all window displays: mean difference in millimetres (SD difference; 95% limits of agreement) ranged from 0 (1.7, -3.3, 3.3) for 2D colon to -1.1mm (1.6, -4.3, 2.0) for 3D, compared with -0.5 (2.09, -4.6, 3.6) for automated measurement. When compared to colonoscopy, the largest discrepancy occurred using the 3D display (mean difference 1.3mm, 2.5mm for each observer). There was also a significant difference between estimates and reference size when using the 2D abdominal and 3D displays (p=0.03, <0.001)., Conclusion: Automated polyp measurement is possible in vivo. Automated and conventional methods have comparable inter-observer agreement. The greatest measurement error is encountered when using a 3D display for estimates of diameter.

Purpose: To prospectively investigate the relative accuracy and reproducibility of manual and automated computer software measurements by using polyps of known size in a human colectomy specimen., Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained for the study; written consent for use of the surgical specimen was obtained. A colectomy specimen containing 27 polyps from a 16-year-old male patient with familial adenomatous polyposis was insufflated, submerged in a container with solution, and scanned at four-section multi-detector row computed tomography (CT). A histopathologist measured the maximum dimension of all polyps in the opened specimen. Digital photographs and line drawings were produced to aid CT-histologic measurement correlation. A novice (radiographic technician) and an experienced (radiologist) observer independently estimated polyp diameter with three methods: manual two-dimensional (2D) and manual three-dimensional (3D) measurement with software calipers and automated measurement with software (automatic). Data were analyzed with paired t tests and Bland-Altman limits of agreement., Results: Seven polyps (

This study investigated the variability in baseline computed tomography colonography (CTC) performance using untrained readers by documenting sources of error to guide future training requirements. Twenty CTC endoscopically validated data sets containing 32 polyps were consensus read by three unblinded radiologists experienced in CTC, creating a reference standard. Six readers without prior CTC training [four residents and two board-certified subspecialty gastrointestinal (GI) radiologists] read the 20 cases. Readers drew a region of interest (ROI) around every area they considered a potential colonic lesion, even if subsequently dismissed, before creating a final report. Using this final report, reader ROIs were classified as true positive detections, true negatives correctly dismissed, true detections incorrectly dismissed (i.e., classification error), or perceptual errors. Detection of polyps 1-5 mm, 6-9 mm, and > or =10 mm ranged from 7.1% to 28.6%, 16.7% to 41.7%, and 16.7% to 83.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference between polyp detection or false positives for the GI radiologists compared with residents (p=0.67, p=0.4 respectively). Most missed polyps were due to failure of detection rather than characterization (range 82-95%). Untrained reader performance is variable but generally poor. Most missed polyps are due perceptual error rather than characterization, suggesting basic training should focus heavily on lesion detection.

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.

Purpose: To investigate effect of attenuation of tagged fluid and viewing window on polyp conspicuity and measurement with porcine colonic specimen., Materials and Methods: Eleven (3-10-mm-diameter) polyps were created in porcine colon and the specimen submerged in saline. Four-detector row CT was performed after gas distension and after filling with six barium sulfate suspensions (attenuation, 100-1000 HU). Two readers independently measured maximal two-dimensional polyp diameter on each data set with the following four viewing windows and window levels and window widths, respectively: colon (-150 HU, 1500 HU), lung (-500 HU, 1500 HU), bone (500 HU, 2500 HU), and abdomen (40 HU, 400 HU). In consensus, polyp conspicuity (compared with air data set) was assigned a grade of 1-4 for each viewing window (grade 1, not seen or barely visible; grade 4, optimally seen). For statistical analysis, conspicuity grades were collapsed to a two-point scale. Data were analyzed with Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and chi2 tests., Results: Accuracy of polyp measurement was independent of viewing window for attenuation of tagged fluid of 100-300 HU but differed significantly for 500-1000 HU (P < .001); that for colonic and bone viewing windows was superior (median size difference, 1.0 mm; interquartile range, 0.5-1.5). Conspicuity differed significantly according to viewing window at all attenuation values (P < .001). For 100-300 HU with abdominal viewing window, 83% (24 of 29) of observations were assigned grade 3 or 4 (best). For 500-1000 HU with bone viewing window, 94% (30 of 32) of observations were assigned grade 3 or 4 (superior). Overall conspicuity was best with bone viewing windows at 700 HU., Conclusion: Polyp conspicuity and measurement in tagged data sets were optimized at 700 HU with bone viewing windows. At less than 300 HU, conspicuity improved with abdominal viewing windows., (RSNA, 2006)

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., (Copyright (c) RSNA, 2006.)

Objective: The purpose of our study was to assess the sensitivity of computer-assisted reader (CAR) software for polyp detection compared with the performance of expert reviewers., Materials and Methods: A library of colonoscopically validated CT colonography cases were collated and separated into training and test sets according to the time of accrual. Training data sets were annotated in consensus by three expert radiologists who were aware of the colonoscopy report. A subset of 45 training cases containing 100 polyps underwent batch analysis using ColonCAR version 1.2 software to determine the optimum polyp enhancement filter settings for polyp detection. Twenty-five consecutive positive test data sets were subsequently interpreted individually by each expert, who was unaware of the endoscopy report, and before generation of the annotated reference via an unblinded consensus interpretation. ColonCAR version 1.2 software was applied to the test cases, at optimized polyp enhancement filter settings, to determine diagnostic performance. False-positive findings were classified according to importance., Results: The 25 test cases contained 32 nondiminutive polyps ranging from 6 to 35 mm in diameter. The ColonCAR version 1.2 software identified 26 (81%) of 32 polyps compared with an average sensitivity of 70% for the expert reviewers. Eleven (92%) of 12 polyps > or = 10 mm were detected by ColonCAR version 1.2. All polyps missed by experts 1 (n = 4) and 2 (n = 3) and 12 (86%) of 14 polyps missed by expert 3 were detected by ColonCAR version 1.2. The median number of false-positive highlights per case was 13, of which 91% were easily dismissed., Conclusion: ColonCAR version 1.2 is sensitive for polyp detection, with a clinically acceptable false-positive rate. ColonCAR version 1.2 has a synergistic effect to the reviewer alone, and its standalone performance may exceed even that of experts.

The aim of this study was to compare the confidence of experienced radiologists in excluding colonic neoplasia with CT colonography (CTC) compared with barium enema. 78 patients (median age 70 years, range 61-87 years, 44 women) underwent same day CTC and barium enema. Two radiologists experienced in reporting barium enema assessed whether the examination had excluded a polyp 6 mm or greater as "yes", "probably" or "no" for each of 6 colonic segments. Two different radiologists experienced in CTC independently performed the same assessment on the CT datasets. Responses were compared using a paired exact test. Formal barium enema and CT reports were compared with any endoscopic examination performed within 1 year. Studies reporting polyps 6 mm+ in patients not subsequently undergoing endoscopy were reviewed by two independent observers. Radiologists stated they had confidently excluded a significant lesion in 314 (71%) and 382 (86%) of 444 segments with barium enema and CTC, respectively (p<0.001). Confidence was significantly higher with CTC in the in the descending and ascending colon (p = 0.02 and p<0.001, respectively), and caecum (p<0.001). 22 patients underwent some form of endoscopy. Of five patients with proven colorectal neoplasia (including two with cancer), CTC and barium enema correctly identified five and three, respectively. In 56 patients not undergoing endoscopy, CTC reported 17 polyps 6 mm+, of which 16 were retrospectively classified as definite or probable. 11 could not be identified on the barium enema, even in retrospect. Confidence in excluding polyps 6 mm or larger is significantly greater with CT colonography particularly in the proximal colon.

Purpose: To assess the methodologic quality of available data in published reports of computed tomographic (CT) colonography by performing systematic review and meta-analysis., Materials and Methods: The MEDLINE database was searched for colonography reports published between 1994 and 2003, without language restriction. The terms colonography, colography, CT colonoscopy, CT pneumocolon, virtual colonoscopy, and virtual endoscopy were used. Studies were selected if the focus was detection of colorectal polyps verified with within-subject reference colonoscopy by using key methodologic criteria based on information presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Virtual Colonoscopy (Boston, Mass). Two reviewers independently abstracted methodologic characteristics. Per-patient and per-polyp detection rates were extracted, and authors were contacted, when necessary. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity were calculated for different lesion size categories, and Forest plots were produced. Meta-analysis of paired sensitivity and specificity was conducted by using a hierarchical model that enabled estimation of summary receiver operating characteristic curves allowing for variation in diagnostic threshold, and the average operating point was calculated. Per-polyp sensitivity was also calculated., Results: Of 1398 studies considered for inclusion, 24 met our criteria. There were 4181 patients with a study prevalence of abnormality of 15%-72%. Meta-analysis of 2610 patients, 206 of whom had large polyps, showed high per-patient average sensitivity (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 73%, 98%) and specificity (97%; 95% CI: 95%, 99%) for colonography; sensitivity and specificity decreased to 86% (95% CI: 75%, 93%) and 86% (95% CI: 76%, 93%), respectively, when the threshold was lowered to include medium polyps. When polyps of all sizes were included, studies were too heterogeneous in sensitivity (range, 45%-97%) and specificity (range, 26%-97%) to allow meaningful meta-analysis. Of 150 cancers, 144 were detected (sensitivity, 95.9%; 95% CI: 91.4%, 98.5%). Data reporting was frequently incomplete, with no generally accepted format., Conclusion: CT colonography seems sufficiently sensitive and specific in the detection of large and medium polyps; it is especially sensitive in the detection of symptomatic cancer. Studies are poorly reported, however, and the authors propose a minimum data set for study reporting., (RSNA, 2005)

Objective: To investigate inter- and intraobserver agreement of automated measurement of polyp diameter in vitro., Methods: Two phantoms ("QRM" and "Whiting") containing simulated polyps of known diameter and volume were scanned using 16-detector row computed tomography. Two observers estimated polyp diameter using 3 methods: software calipers ("manual"), freehand boundary identification ("semiautomatic"), and automated software segmentation ("fully automatic")., Results: Intraobserver 95% limits of agreement for diameter were narrowest for the fully automatic method (QRM span: 0.39 mm, 0.48 mm; Whiting span: 0.24 mm, 0 mm). Manual estimates were approximately 10 times wider (QRM span: 3.57 mm, 3.21 mm; Whiting span: 3.2 mm, 2.02 mm). Volume estimates were narrowest for the fully automatic method (span: 24.2 mm, 24.1 mm vs. 97.9 mm, 102.9 mm for semiautomatic measurement). Interobserver agreement for diameter was narrowest for the fully automatic method (QRM span: 0.12 mm, Whiting span: 0.16 mm), with the manual method approximately 18 times wider (QRM span: 2.87 mm, Whiting span: 2.18 mm)., Conclusion: Fully automated measurement of polyp diameter and volume is technically feasible and results in superior inter- and intraobserver agreement.

Purpose: To investigate the effects of orientation, collimation, pitch, and tube current setting on polyp detection at multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) colonography and to determine the optimal combination of scanning parameters for screening., Materials and Methods: A colectomy specimen containing 117 polyps of different sizes was insufflated and imaged with a multi-detector row CT scanner at various collimation (1.25 and 2.5 mm), pitch (3 and 6), and tube current (50, 100, and 150 mA) settings. Two-dimensional multiplanar reformatted images and three-dimensional endoluminal surface renderings from the 12 resultant data sets were examined by one observer for the presence and conspicuity of polyps. The results were analyzed with Poisson regression and logistic regression to determine the effects of scanning parameters and of specimen orientation on polyp detection., Results: The percentage of polyps that were detected significantly increased when collimation (P =.008) and table feed (P =.03) were decreased. Increased tube current resulted in improved detection only of polyps with a diameter of less than 5 mm. Polyps of less than 5 mm were optimally depicted with a collimation of 1.25 mm, a pitch of 3, and a tube current setting of 150 mA; polyps with a diameter greater than 5 mm were adequately depicted with 1.25-mm collimation and with either pitch setting and any of the three tube current settings. Small polyps in the transverse segment (positioned at a 90 degrees angle to the z axis of scanning) were significantly less visible than those in parallel or oblique orientations (P <.001). The effective radiation dose, calculated with a Monte Carlo simulation, was 1.4-10.0 mSv., Conclusion: Detection of small polyps (<5 mm) with multi-detector row CT is highly dependent on collimation, pitch, and, to a lesser extent, tube current. Collimation of 1.25 mm, combined with pitch of 6 and tube current of 50 mA, provides for reliable detection of polyps 5 mm or larger while limiting the effective radiation dose. Polyps smaller than 5 mm, however, may be poorly depicted with use of these settings in the transverse colon., (Copyright RSNA, 2003)