CT colonography: effect of colonic distension on polyp measurement accuracy and agreement-in vitro study

Improved Sensitivity and Reader Confidence in CT Colonography Using Dual-Layer Spectral CT: A Phantom Study

Background Limited cathartic preparations for CT colonography with fecal tagging can improve patient comfort but may result in nondiagnostic examinations from poorly tagged stool. Dual-energy CT may overcome this limitation by improving the conspicuity of the contrast agent, but more data are needed. Purpose To investigate whether dual-energy CT improves polyp detection in CT colonography compared with conventional CT at different fecal tagging levels in vitro. Materials and Methods In this HIPAA-compliant study, between December 2017 and August 2019, a colon phantom 30 cm in diameter containing 60 polyps of different shapes (spherical, ellipsoid, flat) and size groups (5-9 mm, 11-15 mm) was constructed and serially filled with simulated feces tagged with four different iodine concentrations (1.26, 2.45, 4.88, and 21.00 mg of iodine per milliliter), then it was scanned with dual-energy CT with and without an outer fat ring to simulate large body size (total diameter, 42 cm). Two readers independently reviewed conventional 120-kVp CT and 40-keV monoenergetic dual-energy CT images to record the presence of polyps and confidence (three-point scale.) Generalized estimating equations were used for sensitivity comparisons between conventional CT and dual-energy CT, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for reader confidence. Results Dual-energy CT had higher overall sensitivity for polyp detection than conventional CT (58.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 49.7%, 67.3%; 564 of 960 polyps vs 42.1%; 95% CI: 32.1%, 52.8%; 404 of 960 polyps; P < .001), including with the fat ring (48% and 31%, P < .001). Reader confidence improved with dual-energy CT compared with conventional images on all tagging levels (P < .001). Interrater agreement was substantial (κ = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.77). Conclusion Compared with conventional 120-kVp CT, dual-energy CT improved polyp detection and reader confidence in a dedicated dual-energy CT colonography phantom, especially with suboptimal fecal tagging. © RSNA, 2020.

Chemoprevention of familial adenomatous polyposis

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) has always been first and foremost a surgical disease, whose treatment with colectomy has long been known to reduce risk of premature cancer death. The notion of reducing polyp burden and potentially delaying surgical intervention has spawned a host of "chemoprevention" trials. In this paper I selectively review the findings from these studies, highlighting trial design issues and in particular some of the limitations of historical and existing trial endpoint measures. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents have been the most commonly employed chemopreventive agents. Sulindac, largely by historical accident, has been the most extensively studied, and is widely considered the standard of care when a clinical decision to intervene medically is made. Newer trials are evaluating combinations of agents in order to take advantage of differing mechanisms of action, in the hope of achieving synergy, as no single agent predictably or completely suppresses adenoma growth. Some of these studies and other single-agent interventions are discussed, though an exploration of the various mechanisms of action is beyond the scope of this paper. It is essential that future trials focus on the issue of "clinical benefit", not simply because the US Food and Drug Administration has insisted on it, but because only real evidence-based advances can improve the standard of medical care for FAP patients. Hence my focus on issues of trial design and clinically relevant endpoints.

Computed Tomography Colonography Phantom: Construction, Validation and Literature Review

Background

Several dedicated computed tomography (CT) colonography phantoms have been described previously.

Objectives

To compare their pros and cons and describe the construction of a dedicated phantom that can be easily manufactured.

Materials and Methods

We found 15 different phantom designs by literature search and compared their advantages and disadvantages based on their description and images. We tested various materials for density and mechanical properties and constructed a phantom from polypropylene pipes (30 mm and 50 mm in diameter, 52 cm in length). Haustral folds were created by heat shaping and 39 intermediate sessile polyps with a target size of 6-10 mm and two flat lesions were created from silicone. Nine polyps were attached to a fold. The model was placed in a 30-cm barrel filled with water to simulate attenuation of human body. Attenuation of polyps was compared to intermediate polyps found in patients.

Results

None of the earlier colonic phantoms found in the literature incorporated all the properties that would ensure both reproducibility and validity of the model (including a rigid wall, density of the wall and polyps similar to human colon, at least two levels of distension and durability). In the present phantom, the average size of sessile polyps was 8.6 ± 0.9 mm and their density was 53 ± 24 HU. We found no significant difference in polyp density between simulated polyps in the phantom and polyps in human subjects (P = 0.70). All polyps, with the exception of one flat lesion, were detected by computer aided detection.

Conclusion

We constructed and validated a CT colonography phantom with correct density allowing performance of reproducible experiments.

Sub-milliSievert ultralow-dose CT colonography with iterative model reconstruction technique

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical and diagnostic performance of sub-milliSievert ultralow-dose (ULD) CT colonograpy (CTC) in the detection of colonic and extracolonic lesions.

Materials and Methods. CTC with standard dose (SD) and ULD acquisitions of 64 matched patients, half of them with colonic findings, were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid (HIR) and iterative model reconstruction techniques (IMR). Image noise in six colonic segments, in the left psoas muscle and aorta were measured. Image quality of the left adrenal gland and of the colon in the endoscopic and 2D view was rated on a five point Likert scale by two observers, who also completed the reading of CTC for colonic and extracolonic findings.

Results. The mean radiation dose estimate was 4.1 ± 1.4 mSv for SD and 0.86 ± 0.17 mSv for ULD for both positions (p < 0.0001). In ULD-IMR, SD-IMR and SD-HIR, the endoluminal noise was decreased in all colonic segments compared to SD-FBP (p < 0.001). There were 27 small (6–9 mm) and 17 large (≥10 mm) colonic lesions that were classified as sessile polyps (n = 38), flat lesions (n = 3), or as a mass (n = 3). Per patient sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 and 0.93 for ULD-FBP, 0.97 and 0.97 for ULD-HIR, 0.97 and 1.0 for ULD-IMR. Per polyp sensitivity was 0.84 for ULD-FBP, 0.98 for ULD-HIR, 0.98 for ULD-IMR. Significantly less extracolonic findings were detected in ULD-FBP and ULD-HIR, but in the E4 category by C-RADS (potentially important findings), the detection was similar.

Conclusion. Both HIR and IMR are suitable for sub-milliSievert ULD CTC without sacrificing diagnostic performance of the study.

Polyp size measurement at CT colonography: what do we know and what do we need to know?

Polyp size is a critical biomarker for clinical management. Larger polyps have a greater likelihood of being or of becoming an adenocarcinoma. To balance the referral rate for polypectomy against the risk of leaving potential cancers in situ, sizes of 6 and 10 mm are increasingly being discussed as critical thresholds for clinical decision making (immediate polypectomy versus polyp surveillance) and have been incorporated into the consensus CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS). Polyp size measurement at optical colonoscopy, pathologic examination, and computed tomographic (CT) colonography has been studied extensively but the reported precision, accuracy, and relative sizes have been highly variable. Sizes measured at CT colonography tend to lie between those measured at optical colonoscopy and pathologic evaluation. The size measurements are subject to a variety of sources of error associated with image acquisition, display, and interpretation, such as partial volume averaging, two- versus three-dimensional displays, and observer variability. This review summarizes current best practices for polyp size measurement, describes the role of automated size measurement software, discusses how to manage the measurement uncertainties, and identifies areas requiring further research.

Comparison of polyp size and volume at CT colonography: implications for follow-up CT colonography

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of polyp measurements at CT colonography and the factors that affect the measurements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty colonoscopically proven cases of polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger were analyzed by two observers who measured each polyp in supine and prone views. Manual measurements of 2D volume by summation of areas, 2D maximum diameter, and 3D maximum diameter and automated measurements of 3D maximum diameter and volume were recorded for each observer and were repeated for one of the observers. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was calculated. Analysis was performed to determine the measurement parameter that correlated most with summation-of-areas volume. Supine and prone measurements as a surrogate for tracking change in polyp size over time were analyzed to determine the measurement parameter with the least variation.

RESULTS

Maximum diameter measured manually on 3D images had the highest correlation with summation-of-areas volume. Manual summation-of-areas volume was found to have the least variation between supine and prone measurements.

CONCLUSION

Linear polyp measurement in the 3D endoluminal view appears to be the most reliable parameter for use in the decision to excise a polyp according to current guidelines. In our study, manual calculation of volume with summation of areas was found to be the most reliable measurement parameter for observing polyp growth over serial examinations. High reliability of polyp measurements is essential for adequate assessment of change in polyp size over serial examinations because many patients with intermediate-size polyps are expected to choose surveillance.

CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers

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.

Manual and automated polyp measurement comparison of CT colonography with optical colonoscopy

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess (1) the agreement of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) manual and automated polyp linear diameter measurements at CT colonography (CTC), with optical colonoscopic equivalents and (2) intraobserver and interobserver agreement of the CTC measurements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the same CTC system, two radiologists independently measured the maximum linear diameter of 44 polyps (reference size 3-15 mm) matched on CTC and optical colonoscopy: manual 2D optimized multiplanar reformatted planes with standard window settings (level 1500 HU, width -200 HU), manual 3D measurement with software calipers and automated 3D measurement with software. After 2 weeks, polyps were measured again. Compatibility of CTC measurement with that of optical colonoscopy and measurement reproducibility was assessed statistically.

RESULTS

In the manual measurement, 44 polyps were analyzed and 41 in automated measurement; three polyps could not be extracted. Although the measurement difference was noted for automated, manual 3D, and manual 2D measurements, statistically supported agreement with optical colonoscopic measurement was noted only with manual 2D measurement for both observers. However, 95% limits of agreement were wide for all the measurement methods. When categorized according to the optical colonoscopic measurement, manual 2D, 3D, and automated measurements showed "good" agreement. Although intraobserver and interobserver agreement was good with manual measurement, intraobserver and interobserver agreement was excellent with automated measurement.

CONCLUSION

Manual 2D measurements demonstrated trends of better approximation to optical colonoscopy measurements than manual 3D or automated measurements. And automated measurement eliminated intraobserver and interobserver variability. For noninvasive CTC surveillance, manual 2D measurements are expected to measure medium-sized polyps with sufficient agreement with optical colonoscopic measurements and excellent intraobserver and interobserver variability, especially if combined with automated measurement.

Variation of agreement in polyp size measurement between computed tomographic colonography and pathology assessment: clinical implications

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Clinical management of polyps discovered by computed tomographic (CT) colonography depends on polyp size. However, size measured by CT colonography is an estimate, and its agreement with other measures is not well characterized. We hypothesized that size measurement by CT colonography varies substantially compared with measurement by other methods.

METHODS

We performed a secondary data analysis of a multicenter study of CT colonography in comparison with colonoscopy. Polyp size was determined by CT colonography, at colonoscopy, and measurement prefixation with a ruler. Agreement was assessed using descriptive statistics and Bland-Altman methodology.

RESULTS

Six hundred trial participants completed both tests. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement indicated that estimates of size by CT colonography were between 52% lower to 64% higher than prefixation polyp size estimates. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement stratified by categories of clinical importance indicated that estimates of size by CT colonography were between 44% lower to 84% higher for polyps 0.6 cm or smaller, 44% lower to 44% higher for polyps 0.6 to 0.9 cm, and 48% lower to 22% higher for polyps smaller than 0.6 cm, 44% lower to 44% higher for polyps 0.6 cm to 0.9 cm, and 48% lower to 22% higher for polyps larger than 0.9 cm compared with prefixation estimates. Analysis of participants with 1 identified polyp in the same colon segment showed that categorization based on CT colonography measurement (ie, <0.6 cm, 0.6-0.9 cm, or >0.9 cm) differed from prefixation measurement for 43% of participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Polyp size estimation by CT colonography varies from prefixation and colonoscopic measures of size. Future studies should clarify whether size estimation by CT colonography is sufficiently reliable as a primary factor to guide clinical management.

Measurement of colonic polyps by radiologists and endoscopists: who is most accurate?

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.

Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: 3D endoluminal measurement with optimized surface-rendering threshold value and automated measurement

PURPOSE

To determine the optimal surface-rendering threshold value for three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal computed tomographic (CT) colonographic images for accurate manual polyp measurement, with direct measurement of simulated polyps as the reference standard, and to assess the agreement between manual 3D measurements and automated measurements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval was not required for the experimental study with pig colons obtained at an abattoir but was obtained for the use of patient data, with waiver of informed consent. Eighty-six simulated polyps (reference size, 3-15 mm) and 14 human polyps (approximate size, 5-20 mm) were included. Automated polyp measurements and manual measurements with endoluminal views that were surface rendered at threshold values of -800, -700, -600, and -500 HU were performed by one observer. Agreement between CT colonographic measurements and reference sizes and between manual and automated measurements were assessed by using the Bland-Altman method.

RESULTS

For simulated polyps, mean measurement difference between the observed size and reference size was 0.86 mm (95% limits of agreement: -0.52 mm, 2.24 mm), 0.55 mm (95% limits of agreement: -0.75 mm, 1.85 mm), 0.20 mm (95% limits of agreement: -1.11 mm, 1.50 mm), and -0.08 mm (95% limits of agreement: -1.43 mm, 1.27 mm) for -800, -700, -600, and -500 HU, respectively. Mean measurement difference was 0.09 mm (95% limits of agreement: -1.49 mm, 1.67 mm) for automated measurement. Manual polyp size at -500 HU (P = .277) and automated polyp size (P = .288) were not significantly different from reference size. For human polyps, 10 polyps, excluding four lesions that were large, lobulated, or located adjacent to an edge of the haustral fold, showed accurate automated demarcation of lesion boundaries. Automated measurements of the 10 polyps showed the closest agreement with manual measurements at -500 HU.

CONCLUSION

The optimal surface-rendering threshold value for accurate polyp measurement is approximately -500 HU. Automated measurements agree closely with manual measurements at the optimal threshold value for well-circumscribed smooth rounded polyps.