Characterization of lesions missed on interpretation of CT colonography using a 2D search method

Colonic angiodysplasia on CT colonography: case report and characteristic imaging findings

Gastrointestinal angiodysplasia represents the cause of 6% of lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding, particularly in the elderly. Because of the common presentation and age range of affected patients, often patients with occult or massive gastrointestinal bleedings are investigated with colonoscopy, in the suspect of colonic cancer. Other methods are capsule enteroscopy, angiography, double-contrast barium enema, computed tomography angiography, and radionuclide scanning. In this contribution, we describe a case of colonic angiodysplasia first suspected during computed tomography colonography performed after an incomplete colonoscopy in a patient with recent anemization. The purpose is to highlight the computed tomography colonography imaging characteristics of this rare finding during such examination performed due to suspected colon carcinoma as a complementary or substitutive method of colonoscopy.

CT colonography: preliminary assessment of a double-read paradigm that uses computer-aided detection as the first reader

PURPOSE

To compare diagnostic performance and time efficiency of double-reading first-reader computer-aided detection (CAD) (DR FR CAD) followed by radiologist interpretation with that of an unassisted read using segmentally unblinded colonoscopy as reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The local ethical committee approved this study. Written consent to use examinations was obtained from patients. Three experienced radiologists searched for polyps 6 mm or larger in 155 computed tomographic (CT) colonographic studies (57 containing 10 masses and 79 polyps ≥ 6 mm). Reading was randomized to either unassisted read or DR FR CAD. Data sets were reread 6 weeks later by using the opposite paradigm. DR FR CAD consists of evaluation of CAD prompts, followed by fast two-dimensional review for mass detection. CAD sensitivity was calculated. Readers' diagnoses and reviewing times with and without CAD were compared by using McNemar and Student t tests, respectively. Association between missed polyps and lesion characteristics was explored with multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

With mean rate of 19 (standard deviation, 14; median, 15; range, 4-127) false-positive results per patient, CAD sensitivity was 90% for lesions 6 mm or larger. Readers' sensitivity and specificity for lesions 6 mm or larger were 74% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 65%, 84%) and 93% (95% CI: 89%, 97%), respectively, for the unassisted read and 77% (95% CI: 67%, 85%) and 90% (95% CI: 85%, 95%), respectively, for DR FR CAD (P = .343 and P = .189, respectively). Overall unassisted and DR FR CAD reviewing times were similar (243 vs 239 seconds; P = .623); DR FR CAD was faster when the number of CAD marks per patient was 20 or fewer (187 vs 220 seconds, P <01). Odds ratio of missing a polyp with CAD decreased as polyp size increased (0.6) and for polyps visible on both prone and supine scans (0.12); it increased for flat lesions (9.1).

CONCLUSION

DR FR CAD paradigm had similar performance compared with unassisted interpretation but better time efficiency when 20 or fewer CAD prompts per patient were generated.

Efficacy of computer-aided detection as a second reader for 6-9-mm lesions at CT colonography: multicenter prospective trial

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) as a second reader on the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) colonography in detecting 6-9-mm colorectal cancer (CRC) lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Individuals with clinical indications for colonoscopy--either for symptoms or as part of participating in a surveillance program or CRC screening--were prospectively enrolled at one of 10 academic centers between July 2007 and May 2009. Institutional review board approval was obtained at each clinical site, and all participants provided written informed consent. All participants underwent CT colonography and colonoscopy on the same day. Experienced readers interpreted the CT colonography images unassisted and then reviewed all colorectal lesion-like structures pinpointed by the CAD algorithm. Segmental unblinding of CT colonoscopy findings at colonoscopy was utilized. The sensitivity and specificity of unassisted and CAD-assisted reading in identifying individuals with 6-9-mm lesions were calculated and compared by means of pairwise analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 618 participants (mean age, 57.9 years; 54.5% male) were included in the final analysis. Of these participants, 464 (75.1%) had no lesions 6 mm or larger, and 52 (8.4%) had 6-9-mm lesions. The sensitivity of CT colonography with unassisted reading and that with CAD-assisted reading in identifying individuals with 6-9-mm lesions was 65.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 50.9%, 78.0%) and 76.9% (95% CI: 63.2%, 87.5%; P = .016), respectively. No significant change in specificity was observed: The specificity of CT colonography with unassisted and that with CAD-assisted reading was 91.8% (95% CI: 88.9%, 94.1%) and 90.9% (95% CI: 88.0%, 93.4%; P = .063), respectively. Evaluation of CAD candidates required an additional 1.6 minutes (25th-75th percentile: 1.0 minute to 3.4 minutes).

CONCLUSION

The addition of CAD to reading performed by experienced readers resulted in a significant benefit in the detection of 6-9-mm polyps at CT colonography in this cohort.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120376/-/DC1.

Detection of flat colorectal polyps at screening CT colonography in comparison with conventional polypoid lesions

BACKGROUND

Although the screening of small, flat polyps is clinically important, the role of CT colonography (CTC) screening in their detection has not been thoroughly investigated.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the detection capability and usefulness of CTC in the screening of flat and polypoid lesions by comparing CTC with optic colonoscopy findings as the gold standard.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We evaluated the CTC detection capability for flat colorectal polyps with a flat surface and a height not exceeding 3 mm (n = 42) by comparing to conventional polypoid lesions (n = 418) according to the polyp diameter. Four types of reconstruction images including multiplanar reconstruction, volume rendering, virtual gross pathology, and virtual endoscopic images were used for visual analysis. We compared the abilities of the four reconstructions for polyp visualization.

RESULTS

Detection sensitivity for flat polyps was 31.3%, 44.4%, and 87.5% for lesions measuring 2-3 mm, 4-5 mm, and ≥6 mm, respectively; the corresponding sensitivity for polypoid lesions was 47.6%, 79.0%, and 91.7%. The overall sensitivity for flat lesions (47.6%) was significantly lower than polypoid lesions (64.1%). Virtual endoscopic imaging showed best visualization among the four reconstructions. Colon cancers were detected in eight patients by optic colonoscopy, and CTC detected colon cancers in all eight patients.

CONCLUSION

CTC using 64-row multidetector CT is useful for colon cancer screening to detect colorectal polyps while the detection of small, flat lesions is still challenging.

CAD-associated reader error in CT colonography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Computed tomographic colonographic interpretation with computer-aided detection (CAD) may be superior to unaided viewing, although polyp characteristics may influence accuracy. Reader error due to polyp characteristics was evaluated in a multiple-case, multiple-reader trial of computed tomographic colonography with CAD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two experts retrospectively reviewed 52 positive cases (74 polyps) and categorized them as hard, moderate, or easy to detect. Each case was evaluated without and with CAD. Features that may influence a reader's ability to detect a polyp or to accept or reject a CAD mark were tabulated. The association between polyp characteristics and detection rates in the trial was assessed. The difference in detection rates (CAD vs unassisted) was calculated, and regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of 64 polyps found by CAD, experts categorized 20 as hard, 28 as moderate, and 16 as easy to detect. Reader characterization errors predominated (47.3%) over other errors. Factors associated with lower detection rates included small size, flat morphology, and resemblance to a thickened fold. CAD was superior for polyps resembling lipomas compared to those that did not resemble lipomas (average increase in detection rate with CAD, 12.8% vs 5.5%; P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Polyp characteristic may impair computed tomographic colonographic interpretation augmented by CAD. Readers can avoid errors of measurement by evaluating diminutive polyp candidates with sample measurements. Caution should be taken when evaluating focally thick folds and when using visual impression to dismiss a polyp candidate as a lipoma when it is submerged in densely tagged fluid.

Differentiation of incidental intestinal activities at PET/CT examinations with a new sign: peristaltic segment sign

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to present the effect of the peristaltic segment sign for the differential diagnosis between malignant, physiological and gastrointestinal focal fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptakes as an alternative method to maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Gastrointestinal tract (GIT) sections of 823 FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) performed in our center were reviewed retrospectively. Images of these cases that have been reported for positive intestinal focal FDG uptake areas were included. Through the sectional images, any accompanying short segment expanded with air just after or before the uptake area was marked as "positive peristaltism sign". The cases were confirmed with endoscopy plus biopsy (n:42), endoscopy (n:5), laparotomy (n:1), transabdominal biopsy (n:1), enteroclysis (n:1), CT-colonoscopy (n:5), rectal contrast enhanced CT (n:4). Distinguishing features of the sign were analyzed statistically compared to the conventional method for differentiation of malignity.

RESULTS

Localized FDG uptake was reported in 59 of 823 cases. A SUVmax greater than 2.5 with intestinal wall thickening allowed the diagnosis of malignity with sensitivity 33%, specificity 65%, positive predictive value 69% and negative predictive value 46%. The peristaltic segment sign, considered as a benign finding, increased the statistical values to 68%, 80%, 82% and 65%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In case of gastrointestinal increased focal FDG uptake, the new parameter of peristaltic segment sign may differentiate the physiologic uptakes from the malignant ones more accurately than the conventional SUVmax.

Fecal-tagging CT colonography with structure-analysis electronic cleansing for detection of colorectal flat lesions

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility and sensitivity of the 3D-reading of fecal-tagging CT colonography (CTC) with a novel structure-analysis electronic cleansing (SAEC) in detecting colorectal flat lesions in comparison with a cleansed 3D reading with Viatronix V3D Colon system (V3D) and primary uncleansed 2D reading (2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty CTC cases with flat lesions were retrospectively observed. The Subjects from a multicenter clinical trial underwent cathartic bowel preparation with orally administrated barium-based fecal-tagging. Sixty-nine flat lesions were confirmed using colonoscopy and histopathology as a reference standard. The results from SAEC reading were compared with those of prospective V3D and 2D readings.

RESULTS

Overall detection sensitivity with SAEC was 52% (36/69), which was statistically higher than that of 32% (22/69) and 29% (20/69) with V3D and 2D readings, respectively (p<0.05). The sensitivities in detecting not-on-fold flat lesions were 63% (24/38), 45% (17/38), and 42% (16/38) with SAEC, V3D, and 2D readings, respectively; whereas those of on-fold flat lesions were 39% (12/31), 16% (5/31), and 13% (4/31), respectively. None of the eight flat lesions (2-9mm) at cecum was detected by any of the three reading methods. Excluding the flat lesions at cecum, the sensitivity with SAEC for detecting flat lesion ≥4mm increased to 84% (31/37).

CONCLUSIONS

The fecal-tagging CTC with structure-analysis electronic cleansing could yield a high sensitivity for detecting flat lesions ≥4mm. The not-on-fold flat lesions were detected with higher sensitivity than on-fold flat lesions.

ACRIN CT colonography trial: does reader's preference for primary two-dimensional versus primary three-dimensional interpretation affect performance?

PURPOSE

To determine whether the reader's preference for a primary two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) computed tomographic (CT) colonographic interpretation method affects performance when using each technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, images from 2531 CT colonographic examinations were interpreted by 15 trained radiologists by using colonoscopy as a reference standard. Through a survey at study start, study end, and 6-month intervals, readers were asked whether their interpretive preference in clinical practice was to perform a primary 2D, primary 3D, or both 2D and 3D interpretation. Readers were randomly assigned a primary interpretation method (2D or 3D) for each CT colonographic examination. Sensitivity and specificity of each method (primary 2D or 3D), for detecting polyps of 10 mm or larger and 6 mm or larger, based on interpretive preference were estimated by using resampling methods.

RESULTS

Little change was observed in readers' preferences when comparing them at study start and study end, respectively, as follows: primary 2D (eight and seven readers), primary 3D (one and two readers), and both 2D and 3D (six and six readers). Sensitivity and specificity, respectively, for identifying examinations with polyps of 10 mm or larger for readers with a primary 2D preference (n = 1128 examinations) were 0.84 and 0.86, which was not significantly different from 0.84 and 0.83 for readers who preferred 2D and 3D (n = 1025 examinations) or from 0.76 and 0.82 for readers with a primary 3D preference (n = 378 examinations). When performance by using the assigned 2D or 3D method was evaluated on the basis of 2D or 3D preference, there was no difference among those readers by using their preferred versus not preferred method of interpretation. Similarly, no significant difference among readers or preferences was seen when performance was evaluated for detection of polyps of 6 mm or larger.

CONCLUSION

The reader's preference for interpretive method had no effect on CT colonographic performance.

Flat colon polyps: what should radiologists know?

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.

Can radiologist training and testing ensure high performance in CT colonography? Lessons From the National CT Colonography Trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to describe the experience of the National CT Colonography Trial with radiologist training and qualification testing at CT colonography (CTC) and to correlate this experience with subsequent performance in a prospective screening study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Ten inexperienced radiologists participated in a 1-day educational course, during which partial CTC examinations of 27 cases with neoplasia and full CTC examinations of 15 cases were reviewed using primary 2D and 3D search. Subsequently 15 radiologists took a qualification examination composed of 20 CTC cases. Radiologists who did not pass the first qualification examination attended a second day of focused retraining of 30 cases, which was followed by a second qualification examination. The results of the initial and subsequent qualification tests were compared with reader performance in a large prospective screening trial.

RESULTS

All radiologists took and passed the qualification examinations. Seven radiologists passed the qualification examination the first time it was offered, and eight radiologists passed after focused retraining. Significantly better sensitivities were obtained on the second versus the first examination for the retrained radiologists (difference = 16%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in sensitivities between the groups who passed the qualification examination the first time versus those who passed the second time in the prospective study (88% vs 92%, respectively; p = 0.612). In the prospective study, the odds of correctly identifying diseased cases increased by 1.5 fold for every 50-case increase in reader experience or formal training (p < 0.025).

CONCLUSION

A significant difference in performance was observed among radiologists before formalized training, but testing and focused retraining improved radiologist performance, resulting in an overall high sensitivity across radiologists in a subsequent, prospective screening study.

Incidental finding of focal FDG uptake in the bowel during PET/CT: CT features and correlation with histopathologic results

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize the clinically significant lesions associated with incidental detection of focal uptake of (18)F-FDG in the bowel at PET/CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among 2,250 consecutively registered patients with various nongastrointestinal malignant diseases who underwent FDG PET/CT as part of their care, patients with the incidental finding of focal bowel uptake of FDG were included in the study. All patients underwent an endoscopic or surgical procedure for characterization of the lesions. The location, intensity of uptake, and appearance of the lesions on PET/CT images were recorded and compared with the endoscopic and surgical pathologic results.

RESULTS

Twenty-one of 25 foci of intense uptake in the bowel were associated with endoscopic or surgical abnormalities (positive predictive value, 84%). Seven lesions were malignant (two primary, five secondary); 13 were premalignant (nine tubovillous adenoma, four tubular adenoma); and one lesion was benign (hyperplastic polyp). Eleven lesions detected with endoscopy were not FDG avid, and all 11 were smaller than 1 cm in diameter. There was no statistically significant difference in the maximum standardized uptake values of the benign and malignant lesions.

CONCLUSION

The incidental finding of focal FDG uptake in the bowel justifies further investigation of these foci and should not be dismissed as physiologic uptake. Premalignant lesions, such as adenoma, are often found, and early treatment may prevent the development of carcinoma.

Polyp characteristics correctly annotated by computer-aided detection software but ignored by reporting radiologists during CT colonography

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.

Flat lesions in CT colonography

Flat lesions have been a source of controversy because of concerns that CT colonography (CTC) is insensitive in detecting these lesions, yet they may harbor a high incidence of advanced neoplasia. The wide variation in the reported incidence of flat lesions may in part be due to the lack of a uniform definition of "flat", and in fact in many prior reports the inclusion criteria for flat are not even clearly specified. Emphasis on the more recent CTC literature suggests that when limited the target lesion to neoplasia (adenomas or adenocarcinoma), the incidence of flat lesions is low and most can be detected by CTC. Using fecal tagging and careful attention to the proper methods of searching for flat lesions with both 3D and 2D techniques can maximize the detection of flat lesions at CTC. Computer-aided detection may be helpful.

Sensitivity of CT colonography for nonpolypoid colorectal lesions interpreted by human readers and with computer-aided detection

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to determine the sensitivity of CT colonography (CTC) interpreted by human readers and with computer-aided detection (CAD) for genuinely nonpolypoid colorectal lesions, defined as 2 mm or less in lesion height at colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A computerized database search for a 33-month period found 21 patients who had undergone both colonoscopy and CTC and who had a total of 23 genuinely nonpolypoid colorectal lesions: eight adenomas (9-30 mm in width), 10 stage Tis or T1 adenocarcinomas (10-25 mm), and five nonadenomatous lesions (8-20 mm). CTC was performed using a cathartic preparation and fecal tagging and was interpreted by experienced readers in a blinded manner using a primary 3D method and with CAD.

RESULTS

The sensitivities of human readers for nonpolypoid adenomatous lesions (i.e., both adenomas and adenocarcinomas), adenocarcinomas, and nonadenomatous lesions were 66.7% (12/18), 90% (9/10), and 0% (0/5), respectively. Sensitivities were 55.6% (10/18), 90% (9/10), and 0% (0/5) for CAD. A 10-mm stage T1 adenocarcinoma was missed by a human reader on blinded review but was detected with CAD. Both human readers and CAD yielded significantly higher sensitivity for adenomatous lesions than for nonadenomatous lesions (p = 0.014 and 0.046, respectively) and for adenocarcinomas than for noncancerous lesions (p = 0.003 and 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

CTC showed a high sensitivity for nonpolypoid stage Tis and T1 adenocarcinomas 10 mm or greater in width despite the limited overall sensitivity for nonpolypoid adenomatous lesions, when performed using cathartic preparation and fecal tagging.

Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers?

The purpose of this study was to compare a primary uncleansed 2D and a primary electronically cleansed 3D reading strategy in CTC in limited prepped patients. Seventy-two patients received a low-fibre diet with oral iodine before CT-colonography. Six novices and two experienced observers reviewed both cleansed and uncleansed examinations in randomized order. Mean per-polyp sensitivity was compared between the methods by using generalized estimating equations. Mean per-patient sensitivity, and specificity were compared using the McNemar test. Results were stratified for experience (experienced observers versus novice observers). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices using cleansed 3D (65%; 95%CI 57–73%) compared with uncleansed 2D (51%; 95%CI 44–59%). For experienced observers there was no significant difference. Mean per-patient sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices as well: respectively 75% (95%CI 70–80%) versus 64% (95%CI 59–70%). For experienced observers there was no statistically significant difference. Specificity for both novices and experienced observers was not significantly different. For novices primary electronically cleansed 3D is better for polyp detection than primary uncleansed 2D.

Conspicuity of colorectal polyps at CT colonography: visual assessment, CAD performance, and the important role of polyp height

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The factors that influence the conspicuity of polyps on computed tomographic (CT) colonography (CTC) are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to compare radiologists' visual assessment of polyp conspicuity to quantitative image features and show the relationship between visual conspicuity and the detection of colonic polyps by computer-aided detection (CAD) on CTC.

METHODS

One polyp (size range 6-10 mm) was selected from the CTC examination of each of 29 patients from a larger cohort. All patients underwent oral contrast-enhanced CTC with same-day optical colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. The polyps were analyzed by a previously validated CAD system and placed into one of two groups (detected [n = 12] or not detected [n = 17] by CAD). The study population was intentionally enriched with polyps that were not detected by the CAD system. Four board-certified radiologists, blinded to the CAD results, reviewed two- and three-dimensional CTC images of the polyps and scored the conspicuity of the polyps using a 4-point scale (0 = least conspicuous, 3 = most conspicuous). Polyp height and width were measured by a trained observer. A t-test (two-tailed, unpaired equal variance) was done to determine statistical significance. Intra- and interobserver variabilities of the conspicuity scores were assessed using the weighted kappa test. Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship of conspicuity to polyp height and width.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference was found between the average conspicuity scores for polyps that were detected by CAD compared to those that were not (2.3 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.4 +/- 0.8) (P = .004). There was moderate intraobserver agreement of the conspicuity scores (weighted kappa 0.57 +/- 0.09). Interobserver agreement was fair (average weighted kappa for six pair-wise comparisons, 0.38 +/- 0.15). Conspicuity was correlated with manual measurement of polyp height (r(2) = 0.38-0.56, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This CAD system tends to detect 6-10 mm polyps that are more visually conspicuous. Polyp height is a major determinant of visual conspicuity. The generalizability of these findings to other CAD systems is currently unknown. Nevertheless, CAD developers may need to specifically target flatter and less conspicuous polyps for CAD to better assist the radiologist to find polyps in this clinically important size category.

Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?

We prospectively determined whether computer-aided detection (CAD) could improve the performance characteristics of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in a population of increased risk for colorectal cancer. Therefore, we included 170 consecutive patients that underwent both CTC and colonoscopy. All findings >or=6 mm were evaluated at colonoscopy by segmental unblinding. We determined per-patient sensitivity and specificity for polyps >or=6 mm and >or=10 mm without and with computer-aided detection (CAD). The McNemar test was used for comparison the results without and with CAD. Unblinded colonoscopy detected 50 patients with lesions >or=6 mm and 25 patients with lesions >or=10 mm. Sensitivity of CTC without CAD for these size categories was 80% (40/50, 95% CI: 69-81%) and 64% (16/25, 95% CI: 45-83%), respectively. CTC with CAD detected one additional patient with a lesion >or=6 mm and two with a lesion >or=10 mm, resulting in a sensitivity of 82% (41/50, 95% CI: 71-93%) (p = 0.50) and 72% (18/25, 95% CI: 54-90%) (p = 1.0), respectively. Specificity without CAD for polyps >or=6 mm and >or=10 mm was 84% (101/120, 95% CI: 78-91%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90-98%), respectively. With CAD, the specificity remained (nearly) unchanged: 83% (99/120, 95% CI: 76-89%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90-98%), respectively. Thus, although CTC with CAD detected a few more patients than CTC without CAD, it had no statistically significant positive influence on CTC performance.

Multidetector CT colonoscopy: evaluation of the perspective-filet view virtual colon dissection technique for the detection of elevated lesions

BACKGROUND

The purpose of our study was to determine the usefulness of a virtual computed tomography colon dissection visualization technique for the detection of polypoid lesions in comparison with conventional virtual colonoscopy analysis and optical colonoscopy.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients were evaluated with optical colonoscopy and computed tomography colonoscopy using 16-row MDCT on the same day. CT images were analyzed by the colon dissection workup with unfolded haustra visualization and also using the conventional virtual colonoscopy technique (axial images and endoluminal views). The CT analysis was performed by an experienced radiologist using both viewing methods in a randomized order and blinded to optical colonoscopy results.

RESULTS

Optical colonoscopy revealed 35 colonic lesions; 15 < 5 mm, 18 between 5-9 mm and 2 > 9 mm. For conventional virtual colonoscopy analysis the overall sensitivity was 86.67%; for the colon dissection visualization technique, the overall sensitivity was 82.86%. The average reading time for conventional virtual colonoscopy was 15 +/- 3 vs. 8 +/- 2 min for the colon dissection visualization technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that there is a significant reduction in the reading time using the colon dissection visualization technique without detriment to the detection rate, that is, competitive to conventional virtual colonoscopy interpretation results.

Diagnostic performance of CT colonography for the detection of colorectal polyps

Objective

To investigate the diagnostic value of CT colonography for the detection of colorectal polyps.

Materials and Methods

From December 2004 to December 2005, 399 patients underwent CT colonography and follow-up conventional colonoscopy. We excluded cases of advanced colorectal cancer. We retrospectively analyzed the CT colonography findings and follow-up conventional colonoscopy findings of 113 patients who had polyps more than 6 mm in diameter. Radiologists using 3D and 2D computer generated displays interpreted the CT colonography images. The colonoscopists were aware of the CT colonography findings before the procedure.

Results

CT colonography detected 132 polyps in 107 of the 113 patients and conventional colonoscopy detected 114 colorectal polyps more than 6 mm in diameter in 87 of the 113 patients. The sensitivity of CT colonography analyzed per polyp was 91% (41/45) for polyps more than 10 mm in diameter and 89% (101/114) for polyps more than 6 mm in diameter. Thirteen polyps were missed by CT colonography and were detected on follow-up conventional colonoscopy.

Conclusion

CT colonography is a sensitive diagnostic tool for the detection of colorectal polyps and adequate bowel preparation, optimal bowel distention and clinical experience are needed to reduce the rate of missing appropriate lesions.

Computer-aided detection (CAD) using 360 degree virtual dissection: can CAD in a first reviewer paradigm be a reliable substitute for primary 2D or 3D search?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a new computer-aided detection (CAD) software program as a first reviewer for detecting colorectal polyps when applied to 360 degrees virtual dissection image display.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-one consecutive patients who underwent imaging without oral contrast material for stool tagging from a teaching file database constituted the patient population for this feasibility study. Using CT colonography equipped with CAD software, reviewers evaluated each possible polyp detected by the software using virtual dissection images combined with axial and 3D endoluminal views and compared the results with optical colonoscopy, the reference standard. Two experienced radiologists blinded to the reference standard findings interpreted the CAD detections to be true or false. The false detections were reviewed and categorized.

RESULTS

Sensitivities for polyps that were 6-9 mm were 78.3% (18/23) and 91.3% (21/23) for reviewers 1 and 2, respectively. For polyps > or = 1 cm, sensitivities were 94.9% (37/39) and 97.4% (38/39) for reviewers 1 and 2, respectively. Per-patient sensitivities for polyps > or = 6 and > or = 10 mm were 94.4% (34/36) and 95.1% (39/41) for reviewer 1 and 97.2% (35/36) and 97.6% (40/41) for reviewer 2, respectively. The average number of false detections per acquisition was 4.28. The average interpretation times were 4 minutes 26 seconds and 5 minutes 38 seconds for reviewers 1 and 2, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal polyp detection using CT colonography equipped with CAD and virtual dissection as a first reviewer is feasible. Detection rates are similar to colonoscopy. Interobserver variability is low and interpretation times are short. False-positive detections per patient are few in number.

Comparative performance of two polyp detection systems on CT colonography

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to evaluate two current automatic polyp detection systems to determine their sensitivity and false-positive rate in patients who have undergone CT colonography and subsequent endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated two polyp detection systems--Polyp Enhanced Viewing (PEV) and the Summers computer-aided detection (CAD) system (National Institutes of Health [NIH]) using a unique cohort of CT colonography examinations: 31 examinations with true-positive lesions identified by radiologists and 34 examinations with false-positive lesions incorrectly identified by radiologists. All patients had reference-standard colonoscopy within 7 days of CT. Candidate lesions were compared with the endoscopic reference standard and prospective radiologist interpretation. The sensitivity and false-positive rates were calculated for each system.

RESULTS

The NIH system had a higher sensitivity than the PEV tool for polyps > or = 1 cm (22/23, 96%; 78-99%, 95% CI vs 14/23, 61%; 38-81%, 95% CI; p = 0.008, respectively). There was no significant difference in the detection of medium-sized polyps 6-9 mm in size (8/13 vs 6/13, p = 0.68, respectively). The PEV tool had an average of 1.18 false-positive detections per patient, whereas the NIH tool had an average of 5.20 false-positive detections per patient, with the PEV tool having significantly fewer false-positive detections in both patient groups (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

One polyp detection system tended to operate with a higher sensitivity, whereas the other tended to operate with a lower false-positive rate. Prospective trials using polyp detection systems as a primary or secondary means of CT colonography interpretation appear warranted.

Pitfalls in Multi–Detector Row CT Colonography: A Systematic Approach

Thin-section multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a powerful tool for the detection and classification of colonic lesions. However, each step in the process of a CT colonographic examination carries the potential for misdiagnosis. Suboptimal patient preparation, CT scanning protocol deficiencies, and perception and interpretation errors can lead to false-positive and false-negative findings, adversely affecting the diagnostic performance of CT colonography. These problems and pitfalls can be overcome with a variety of useful techniques and observations. A relatively clean, dry, and well-distended colon can be achieved with careful patient preparation, thereby avoiding the problem of residual stool and fluid. Knowledge of the morphologic and attenuation characteristics of common colonic lesions and artifacts can help identify bulbous haustral folds, impacted diverticula, an inverted appendiceal stump, or mobile polyps, any of which may pose problems for the radiologist. A combined two-dimensional and three-dimensional imaging approach is recommended for each colonic finding. A thorough knowledge of the various pitfalls and pseudolesions that may be encountered at CT colonography, along with use of dedicated problem-solving techniques, will help the radiologist differentiate between definite colonic lesions and pseudolesions.

Perceptive errors in CT colonography

Published results to date have indicated a good per patient sensitivity of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer and for polyps measuring 10 mm or more together with a very good specificity. Sensitivity and specificity for polyps in the range of 6-10 mm are moderate. These results, however, can be achieved only with meticulous attention to technique including adequate colonic distention, and acquisition of supine and prone thin-section computed tomographic (CT) images. Moreover, there is a significant learning curve involved in the interpretation of CTC studies, with performance statistics improving with operator experience. Radiologists must be comfortable in reporting directly from workstation monitors and have access to and be familiar with software for multiplanar and endoluminal reconstructions. In addition to maximize polyp detection and minimize false positive results, reporting radiologists must have a working knowledge of normal colorectal anatomy and pathology on CTC and be familiar with potential pitfalls in interpretation. Besides the description of several possible causes for perceptive errors, also a literature search of perceptive errors in CTC is included in this paper.

Occult colorectal polyps on CT colonography: implications for surveillance

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to determine the prevalence of polyps that are invisible on CT colonography (CTC) in a population previously screened for colorectal neoplasms. Differences in the prevalence of occult polyps in various populations might help explain the discordant reported sensitivities for polyp detection in published reports of CTC.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Seventy-five consecutive patients who had been previously screened for polyps underwent same-day colonoscopy and CTC. Many of the patients had personal histories of previous polypectomies and were undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. The scans were interpreted prospectively by an experienced radiologist. Polyps missed prospectively on CTC were analyzed retrospectively by three experienced radiologists and categorized as perception errors (visible in retrospect), technical errors (e.g., obscured by feces or fluid), or occult (invisible).

RESULTS

Thirty polyps 5 mm or larger were found at colonoscopy, 18 of which were missed prospectively on CTC. Of the 18 missed polyps, 12 could not be identified in retrospect, even though they were located in clean, dry, well-distended colonic segments. These were classified as occult. Ten of the 12 occult polyps showed flat morphology on review of colonoscopy video recordings. Of the remaining six missed polyps, two were classified as perception errors, two as technical errors, and two as a combination of technical and perception error.

CONCLUSION

In this population, colonographically occult polyps were common and accounted for more detection failures than perception errors and technical errors combined. The high prevalence of occult polyps may be explained by the fact that previous screening may have led to removal of easy-to-see polyps, creating a study population with a higher percentage of hard-to-see polyps.

Flat polyps of the colon: detection with 16-MDCT colonography--preliminary results

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the ability of contrast-enhanced, 16-MDCT colonography to display flat colonic lesions when a very narrow slice thickness (1 mm) is used.

CONCLUSION

Less than 50% of flat lesions in our population could be visualized by blinded and unblinded review. Before they could be visualized, flat lesions were 2 mm or greater in height and 7 mm or greater in diameter. Lesions with a height of 1 mm or less were not seen on CT colonography. Contrast enhancement, location on a haustral fold, and abnormal 2D and 3D morphology contributed to lesion conspicuity.

Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training

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.

Clinical value of CT three-dimensional imaging in diagnosing gastrointestinal tract diseases

AIM: To discuss the clinical value of CT three-dimensional (3-D) imaging in diagnosing gastrointestinal tract diseases.

METHODS: Three-D imaging findings of 52 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Three-D imaging methods included shaded surface display (SSD), volume rendering (VR), virtual endoscopy (VE) and multiplanar reformatting (MPR). The diagnosis results of CT 3-D were evaluated by comparison with those of endoscopy and/or surgical finding.

RESULTS: Fifty-two patients with gastrointestinal tract diseases were diagnosed by CT 3-D imaging, of whom 50 cases were correctly diagnosed and 2 were misdiagnosed. There were 33 cases of gastric diseases (27 with carcinoma, 5 with peptic ulcer and 1 with leiomyoma) and 19 large intestinal diseases (10 with colon carcinoma, 2 with carcinoma of the rectum, 5 with colon polypus and 2 with tuberculosis of the ileocecal junction). Twenty-two cases with prominent lesions (9 with subsequent hollow lesions), 20 with stenosis of cavity (8 with concomitant prominent lesions) and 10 with hollow lesions (5 with concomitant prominent lesions) were shown in 3-D images. The minimal lesion shown was 1.0 cm × 0.8 cm × 0.5 cm.

CONCLUSION: CT 3-D imaging, a non-invasive examination without pain, can display clearly and directly the lesions of gastrointestinal tract with accurate location and high diagnosis accuracy. It is an important complementary technique to endoscopy.

CT colonography using 360-degree virtual dissection: a feasibility study

OBJECTIVE

Using a 3D rendering technique called "virtual dissection," we sought to evaluate polyp and fold distortion using a colon phantom, estimate the polyp detection performance in humans, and estimate the added benefit of double interpretation and computer-aided diagnosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A colon phantom containing 144 polyps of varying sizes (5-12 mm) and shapes (flat, sessile, pedunculated) was scanned. Polyp shape and distortion at virtual dissection were categorized as flame, club, pea, or bizarre. Haustral fold distortion was graded. The CT colonography examinations in 20 consecutive patients (colonoscopically proven normal findings, n = 5; polyps > or = 1 cm, n = 17 in 15 patients) were blindly reviewed by three radiologists using the virtual dissection technique. The added benefits of double interpretation and computer-aided diagnosis were tabulated.

RESULTS

Sessile polyps appeared flame (35/48 [73%]) or pea (11/48 [23%]) in shape. Flat polyps appeared flame-shaped (31/47 [66%]) or pea-shaped (16/47 [34%]). Pedunculated polyps were flame (15/45 [33%]), club (20/45 [44%]), or pea (6/45 [13%]) in shape. Axial distortion occurred along the longitudinal axis. The sensitivities of the three observers for polyps of 1 cm or more were 16/17 (94%), 14/17 (82%), and 15/17 (88%). The specificities were 5/5 (100%), 5/5 (100%), and 4/5 (80%). Sensitivities after double interpretation and computer-aided diagnosis improved but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Although distortion of colonic structures exists at virtual dissection, it does so in recognizable patterns, so that sensitivity for polyp detection is not compromised.

Virtual colonoscopy in the detection of colonic polyps and neoplasms

First introduced in 1994, CT colonography (Virtual colonoscopy) has emerged as an accurate, non-invasive test that will likely play a future role in colorectal cancer screening. Over the past 3 years, there have been dramatic improvements in both hardware and software technology relating to CT colonography resulting in shorter scan times, enhanced user-friendliness and improved performance statistics. Published results show the accuracy of CT colonography to be comparable to conventional colonoscopy for detection of polyps >6mm in size with few false-positives. While many of the technical aspects of CT colonography have now been standardised current interest focuses on the development of faecal tagging agents to avoid full bowel catharsis and the use of low dose multislice CT acquisition to reduce patient radiation exposure. This chapter will summarise the development of CT colonography to date, document its published performance in detection of colorectal polyps and cancers, and review its current and potential future uses.

False-negative results at multi-detector row CT colonography: multivariate analysis of causes for missed lesions

PURPOSE

To determine causes of false-negative results at multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) colonography and determine presumptive causes with logistic regression analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. The study included 394 colonic segments in 31 men and 25 women at high risk for colorectal cancer (mean age +/- standard deviation, 60.2 years +/- 9.3 for men and 56.8 years +/- 13.3 for women). Multi-detector row CT colonography and colonoscopy (reference standard) were performed in a blinded manner, and the results were compared. CT colonographic findings were interpreted in consensus by two readers using a primary two-dimensional with three-dimensional problem-solving approach. Adequacy of colonic preparation and distention was recorded. Sensitivity and specificity were obtained with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Lesions missed at CT colonography were retrospectively reassessed to identify why they were missed, and, if the causes were not apparent, logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the presumptive causes.

RESULTS

Colonic preparation and distention were optimal in 17 patients (30%) but suboptimal in 37 (66%) and poor enough to make the results nondiagnostic in two (4%). Twenty-nine of 63 lesions were missed at CT colonography. When all flat, sessile, and pedunculated lesions (n = 63) were included, sensitivities were 75% (nine of 12; 95% CI: 48%, 100%) for lesions 10 mm or larger and 79% (19 of 24; 95% CI: 65%, 93%) for those 6 mm or larger. When only sessile and pedunculated lesions (n = 60) were included, corresponding sensitivities were 100% (nine of nine; 73%, 100%) and 90% (19 of 21; 78%, 100%), respectively. All three missed lesions larger than 10 mm were flat, and all three flat lesions were missed. Two 3-mm high lesions, including one invasive adenocarcinoma, were misinterpreted as feces at blinded image review; one 1-mm high tubular adenoma with adenocarcinoma foci could not be visualized even in retrospect. Sessile or pedunculated polyps 5 mm or smaller were significantly more likely to be missed than those 6 mm or larger (adjusted odds ratio, 11.6; P = .027).

CONCLUSION

Aside from inadequate bowel preparation and/or distention, flat lesions and small polyps are the two main causes for missed lesions at multi-detector row CT colonography.

Comparison of the relative sensitivity of CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema for screen detection of colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In a population reflective of a screening setting, our aim was to compare the relative sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT) colonography with double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) for detection of colorectal polyps and to assess the added value of double reading at CT colonography, using endoscopy as the arbiter.

METHODS

This prospective, blinded study comprised 837 asymptomatic persons at higher than average risk for colorectal cancer who underwent CT colonography followed by same-day DCBE. Examinations with polyps > or =5 mm in diameter were referred to colonoscopy.

RESULTS

CT colonography readers detected 56%-79% of polyps > or =10 mm in diameter. In comparison, the sensitivity at DCBE varied between 39% and 56% for the 31 polyps > or =1 cm. All of the readers detected more polyps at CT colonography than DCBE, but the difference was statistically significant for only a single reader (P = 0.02). Relative specificity for polyps > or =10 mm on a per-patient basis ranged from 96% to 99% at CT colonography, and 99%-100% at DCBE. Doubly read CT colonography detected significantly more polyps than DCBE (81% vs. 45% for polyps > or =1 cm [P = <0.01], and 72% vs. 44% for polyps 5-9 mm [P < or = 0.01]).

CONCLUSIONS

Double-read CT colonography is significantly more sensitive in detecting polyps than single-read double contrast barium enema. DCBE was significantly more specific than CT colonography.