Time efficiency of CT colonography: 2D vs 3D visualization

Increasing Navigation Speed at Endoluminal CT Colonography Reduces Colonic Visualization and Polyp Identification

As navigation speed increases, gaze of the reader becomes more central and polyp identification rates fall.

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.

Computed tomography colonography for the practicing radiologist: A review of current recommendations on methodology and clinical indications

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents one of the most relevant causes of morbidity and mortality in Western societies. CRC screening is actually based on faecal occult blood testing, and optical colonoscopy still remains the gold standard screening test for cancer detection. However, computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) constitutes a reliable, minimally-invasive method to rapidly and effectively evaluate the entire colon for clinically relevant lesions. Furthermore, even if the benefits of its employment in CRC mass screening have not fully established yet, CT colonography may represent a reasonable alternative screening test in patients who cannot undergo or refuse colonoscopy. Therefore, the purpose of our review is to illustrate the most updated recommendations on methodology and the current clinical indications of CT colonography, according to the data of the existing relevant literature.

How to read and report CTC

Owing to encouraging results achieved in the clinical practice, CT colonography (CTC) is being increasingly employed for the examination of the whole colon and rectum and is quickly becoming a widely accepted diagnostic technique that is replacing double contrast barium enema and appears a promising tool for colorectal cancer screening as well. The increasing number of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients undergoing CTC for both evaluation of symptoms and colorectal cancer screening, along with the growing availability of CTC facilities in most healthcare departments and imaging centres, requires that a sufficient number of radiologists be adequately trained in performing and interpreting CTC studies. Indeed, optimal performance of CTC depends on a number of factors, including the quality of colonic preparation (e.g. laxative bowel cleansing and optimised colonic distension), the CTC image acquisition protocol used, and reading approach and specific skills of radiologists for correct detection and interpretation of colonic findings. Consequently, dedicated training and expertise is key to obtain high sensitivity in lesion detection and reduce the number of false positives, thus ensuring an optimal clinical management of patients. To this purpose, dedicated training programmes are essential to teach and standardise not only the approach to CTC reading, but also reporting of colonic findings.

The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography

Objective

To update quality standards for CT colonography based on consensus among opinion leaders within the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR).

Material and methods

A multinational European panel of nine members of the ESGAR CT colonography Working Group (representing six EU countries) used a modified Delphi process to rate their level of agreement on a variety of statements pertaining to the acquisition, interpretation and implementation of CT colonography. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, each at 2 months interval.

Results

The panel elaborated 86 statements.

In the final round the panelists achieved complete consensus in 71 of 86 statements (82 %). Categories including the highest proportion of statements with excellent Cronbach's internal reliability were colon distension, scan parameters, use of intravenous contrast agents, general guidelines on patient preparation, role of CAD and lesion measurement.

Lower internal reliability was achieved for the use of a rectal tube, spasmolytics, decubitus positioning and number of CT data acquisitions, faecal tagging, 2D vs. 3D reading, and reporting.

Conclusion

The recommendations of the consensus should be useful for both the radiologist who is starting a CTC service and for those who have already implemented the technique but whose practice may need updating.

Key Points

• Computed tomographic colonography is the optimal radiological method of assessing the colon

• This article reviews ESGAR quality standards for CT colonography

• This article is aimed to provide CT-colonography guidelines for practising radiologists

• The recommendations should help radiologists who are starting/updating their CTC services

Colorectal cancer screening in women: an underutilized lifesaver

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents the third most common cancer diagnosed and a major cause of cancer-related deaths in women. Despite strong evidence that early screening decreases colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates, colorectal cancer screening rates in women still lag significantly behind screening rates for breast and cervical cancers. Additionally, women have been found to be less likely than men to undergo CRC screening. This is despite the fact that the overall lifetime risk for the development of colorectal carcinoma is similar in both sexes. Barriers to screening have been found to be different for women compared with men. Screening adherence in women also appears to be associated with various social and demographic factors.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography (CTC) is an accurate, minimally invasive, and well-tolerated examination that is newly endorsed by the American Cancer Society, U.S. Multisociety Task Force, and the American College of Radiology. Improved screening compliance may occur in women with further dissemination of CTC.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and interpretation times for a standard and an advanced 3D visualisation technique in CT colonography

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of a standard bi-directional, three-dimensional (3D) CT colonography (CTC) fly-through (standard view, SV) with a unidirectional, 3D unfolding technique (panoramic view, PV).

METHODS

150 consecutive endoscopically-validated CTC patient datasets were retrospectively reviewed twice by two expert radiologists: first, with bidirectional SV, second, after 6-15 months, with unidirectional PV. Per-polyp sensitivities, percentage of visualised colonic mucosa, and reading times were calculated for both 3D visualisations. Results were tested for statistical significance by equivalence analysis for paired proportions and Student's paired t-test.

RESULTS

In 81 patients, 236 polyps (101 adenomas, 135 non-adenomas) were detected. Sensitivities for polyps ≤5 mm, 6-9 mm and ≥10 mm were 60.1% (113/188), 92.9% (26/28) and 95.0% (19/20) with bidirectional SV, and 60.6% (114/188), 96.4% (27/28) and 95.0% (19/20) with unidirectional PV. Overall sensitivity for adenomas was 86.1% and 84.2% for SV and PV. Both methods provided equivalent polyp detection, with an equivalence limit set at 5%. PV and SV visualised 98.9 ± 1.1% (97.0-99.9%) and 96.2 ± 2.3% (91.4-98.8%) of the colonic mucosa (p > 0.05). Mean interpretation time decreased from 14.6 ± 2.5 (9.2-22.8) minutes with SV to 7.5 ± 3.2 (5.0-14.4) using PV (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

3D CTC interpretation using unidirectional PV is equally as accurate, but significantly faster than an interpretation based on bidirectional SV.

Lesion conspicuity and efficiency of CT colonography with electronic cleansing based on a three-material transition model

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to report the effect on lesion conspicuity and the practical efficiency of electronic cleansing for CT colonography (CTC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were included from the Walter Reed Army Medical Center public database. All patients had undergone extensive bowel preparation with fecal tagging. A primary 3D display method was used. For study I, the data consisted of all patients with polyps > or = 6 mm. Two experienced CTC observers (observer 1 and observer 2) scored the lesion conspicuity considering supine and prone positions separately. For study II, data consisted of 19 randomly chosen patients from the database. The same observers evaluated the data before and after electronic cleansing. Evaluation time, assessment effort, and observer confidence were recorded.

RESULTS

In study I, there were 59 lesions partly or completely covered by tagged material (to be uncovered by electronic cleansing) and 70 lesions surrounded by air (no electronic cleansing required). The conspicuity did not differ significantly between lesions that were uncovered by electronic cleansing and lesions surrounded by air (observer 1, p < 0.5; observer 2, p < 0.6). In study II, the median evaluation time per patient after electronic cleansing was significantly shorter than for original data (observer 1, 20 reduced to 12 minutes; observer 2, 17 reduced to 12 minutes). Assessment effort was significantly smaller for both observers (p < 0.0000001), and observer confidence was significantly larger (observer 1, p < 0.007; observer 2, p < 0.0002) after electronic cleansing.

CONCLUSION

Lesions uncovered by electronic cleansing have comparable conspicuity with lesions surrounded by air. CTC with electronic cleansing sustains a shorter evaluation time, lower assessment effort, and larger observer confidence than without electronic cleansing.

Virtual dissection CT colonography: evaluation of learning curves and reading times with and without computer-aided detection

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate the learning curves and reading times of inexperienced readers who used the virtual dissection reading method for retrospective computed tomographic (CT) colonography data sets, with and without concurrent computer-aided detection (CAD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An Institutional Review Board approved this study; informed consent was waived. Four radiologists without experience in CT colonography evaluated 100 optical colonoscopy-proved data sets of 100 patients (49 men, 51 women; mean age, 59 years +/- 13 [standard deviation]; range, 21-85 years) by using the virtual dissection reading method. Two readers used concurrent CAD. Data sets were read during five consecutive 1-day sessions (20 data sets per session). Polyp detection and false-positive rates, receiver operating characteristics (ROCs), and reading times were calculated for individual, CAD group, and non-CAD group readings. Diagnostic values were compared by calculating the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the relative risk. Areas under ROC curves (AUCs) (Hanley and McNeil for paired analysis and z statistics for unpaired analysis) and reading times (Wilcoxon signed rank test) were compared across the sessions, within each session and for the whole study.

RESULTS

The range of detection rates was 79 of 111 (.71 [95% CI: .61, .79]) to 91 of 111 (.82 [95% CI: .73, .88]). The range of false-positive rates was 17 of 111 (.15 [95% CI: .09, .23]) to 22 of 111 (.20 [95% CI: .12, .28]). All readers' AUCs rose from session 1 to session 4; this rise was significant (P < .05) for the non-CAD group. Only during session 1 was the CAD group AUC (.83) higher than the non-CAD group AUC (.54) (P < .05). Comparison of CAD and non-CAD reading times showed no significant difference for the whole study or during each session (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The virtual dissection reading technique allows short learning curves, which may be improved by the concurrent use of CAD, without significant effect on average reading time.

Comparison of axial, coronal, and primary 3D review in MDCT colonography for the detection of small polyps: a phantom study

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.