Comparison of axial, coronal, and primary 3D review in MDCT colonography for the detection of small polyps: a phantom study
- PMID: 18221849
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.040
Comparison of axial, coronal, and primary 3D review in MDCT colonography for the detection of small polyps: a phantom study
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this phantom study is to compare the influence of the reading technique (axial images alone in comparison to 3D endoluminal, coronal, and combined 2D/3D review methods) on the sensitivity and inter-reader variability with MDCT colonography for the detection of small colonic polyps.
Methods: An anthropomorphic pig colon phantom with 75 randomly distributed simulated small polyps of 2-8mm size, was distended with air and scanned in a water phantom using multidetector-row CT with 4mm x 1mm collimation. Three radiologists rated the presence of polyps on a five-point scale. Performance with axial sections alone was compared to the performance with coronal sections, virtual endoscopy (VE), and a combined 2D/3D approach. We calculated sensitivities for polyp detection and used ROC analysis for data evaluation.
Results: There was no significant difference between the mean area under the curve (A(z)) for axial images and VE (A(z)=0.934 versus 0.932), whereas coronal images were significantly inferior (A(z)=0.876) to both. The combined 2D/3D approach yielded the best results, with an A(z) of 0.99. Differences in sensitivity between individual readers were significant in axial images (sensitivity, 75-93%, p=0.001) and coronal images (sensitivity, 69-80%, p=0.028), but became non-significant with VE (83-88%, p=0.144) and the combined 2D/3D approach (95-97%, p=0.288).
Conclusion: Evaluation of axial sections alone leads to significant differences in detection rates between individual observers. A combined 2D/3D evaluation improves sensitivities for polyp detection and reduces inter-individual differences to an insignificant level.
Similar articles
-
Polyp measurement with CT colonography: multiple-reader, multiple-workstation comparison.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Jan;188(1):122-9. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.1535. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007. PMID: 17179354
-
Polyp detection with CT colonography: primary 3D endoluminal analysis versus primary 2D transverse analysis with computer-assisted reader software.Radiology. 2006 Jun;239(3):759-67. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2392050483. Epub 2006 Mar 16. Radiology. 2006. PMID: 16543593
-
Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Dec;189(6):1451-6. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2291. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007. PMID: 18029884
-
3D detection of colonic polyps by CT colonography: accuracy, pitfalls, and solutions by adjunct 2D workup.Clin Radiol. 2015 Oct;70(10):1144-51. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.07.001. Epub 2015 Jul 26. Clin Radiol. 2015. PMID: 26220124 Review.
-
[Virtual CT colonoscopy and virtual CT barium enema using multidetector-row CT].Korean J Gastroenterol. 2006 Oct;48(4):233-40. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2006. PMID: 17060716 Review. Korean.
Cited by
-
Herb Formula (GCis) Prevents Pulmonary Infection Secondary to Intracerebral Hemorrhage by Enhancing Peripheral Immunity and Intestinal Mucosal Immune Barrier.Front Pharmacol. 2022 May 23;13:888684. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.888684. eCollection 2022. Front Pharmacol. 2022. PMID: 35677425 Free PMC article.
-
Rhubarb Enema Improved Colon Mucosal Barrier Injury in 5/6 Nephrectomy Rats May Associate With Gut Microbiota Modification.Front Pharmacol. 2020 Jul 29;11:1092. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.01092. eCollection 2020. Front Pharmacol. 2020. PMID: 32848732 Free PMC article.
-
The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography.Eur Radiol. 2013 Mar;23(3):720-9. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2632-x. Epub 2012 Sep 15. Eur Radiol. 2013. PMID: 22983280 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
