A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography

CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS): Version 2023 Update

The CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS) has withstood the test of time and proven to be a robust classification scheme for CT colonography (CTC) findings. C-RADS version 2023 represents an update on the scheme used for colorectal and extracolonic findings at CTC. The update provides useful insights gained since the implementation of the original system in 2005. Increased experience has demonstrated confusion on how to classify the mass-like appearance of the colon consisting of soft tissue attenuation that occurs in segments with acute or chronic diverticulitis. Therefore, the update introduces a new subcategory, C2b, specifically for mass-like diverticular strictures, which are likely benign. Additionally, the update simplifies extracolonic classification by combining E1 and E2 categories into an updated extracolonic category of E1/E2 since, irrespective of whether a finding is considered a normal variant (category E1) or an otherwise clinically unimportant finding (category E2), no additional follow-up is required. This simplifies and streamlines the classification into one category, which results in the same management recommendation.

Feasibility of using the marginal blood vessels as reference landmarks for CT colonography

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to show the spatial relationship of the colonic marginal blood vessels and the teniae coli on CT colonography (CTC) and the use of the marginal blood vessels for supine-prone registration of polyps and for determination of proper connectivity of collapsed colonic segments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We manually labeled the marginal blood vessels on 15 CTC examinations. Colon segmentation, centerline extraction, teniae detection, and teniae identification were automatically performed. For assessment of their spatial relationships, the distances from the marginal blood vessels to the three teniae coli and to the colon were measured. Student t tests (paired, two-tailed) were performed to evaluate the differences among these distances. To evaluate the reliability of the marginal vessels as reference points for polyp correlation, we analyzed 20 polyps from 20 additional patients who underwent supine and prone CTC. The average difference of the circumferential polyp position on the supine and prone scans was computed. Student t tests (paired, two-tailed) were performed to evaluate the supine-prone differences of the distance. We performed a study on 10 CTC studies from 10 patients with collapsed colonic segments by manually tracing the marginal blood vessels near the collapsed regions to resolve the ambiguity of the colon path.

RESULTS

The average distances (± SD) from the marginal blood vessels to the tenia mesocolica, tenia omentalis, and tenia libera were 20.1 ± 3.1 mm (95% CI, 18.5-21.6 mm), 39.5 ± 4.8 mm (37.1-42.0 mm), and 36.9 ± 4.2 mm (34.8-39.1 mm), respectively. Pairwise comparison showed that these distances to the tenia libera and tenia omentalis were significantly different from the distance to the tenia mesocolica (p < 0.001). The average distance from the marginal blood vessels to the colon wall was 15.3 ± 2.0 mm (14.2-16.3 mm). For polyp localization, the average difference of the circumferential polyp position on the supine and prone scans was 9.6 ± 9.4 mm (5.5-13.7 mm) (p = 0.15) and expressed as a percentage of the colon circumference was 3.1% ± 2.0% (2.3-4.0%) (p = 0.83). We were able to trace the marginal blood vessels for 10 collapsed colonic segments and determine the paths of the colon in these regions.

CONCLUSION

The marginal blood vessels run parallel to the colon in proximity to the tenia mesocolica and enable accurate supine-prone registration of polyps and localization of the colon path in areas of collapse. Thus, the marginal blood vessels may be used as reference landmarks complementary to the colon centerline and teniae coli.

Electronic cleansing for 24-h limited bowel preparation CT colonography using principal curvature flow

CT colonography (CTC) is one of the recommended methods for colorectal cancer screening. The subject's preparation is one of the most burdensome aspects of CTC with a cathartic bowel preparation. Tagging of the bowel content with an oral contrast medium facilitates CTC with limited bowel preparation. Unfortunately, such preparations adversely affect the 3-D image quality. Thus far, data acquired after very limited bowel preparation were evaluated with a 2-D reading strategy only. Existing cleansing algorithms do not work sufficiently well to allow a primary 3-D reading strategy. We developed an electronic cleansing algorithm, aimed to realize optimal 3-D image quality for low-dose CTC with 24-h limited bowel preparation. The method employs a principal curvature flow algorithm to remove heterogeneities within poorly tagged fecal residue. In addition, a pattern recognition-based approach is used to prevent polyp-like protrusions on the colon surface from being removed by the method. Two experts independently evaluated 40 CTC cases by means of a primary 2-D approach without involvement of electronic cleansing as well as by a primary 3-D method after electronic cleansing. The data contained four variations of 24-h limited bowel preparation and was based on a low radiation dose scanning protocol. The sensitivity for lesions ≥ 6 mm was significantly higher for the primary 3-D reading strategy (84%) than for the primary 2-D reading strategy (68%) (p = 0.031). The reading time was increased from 5:39 min (2-D) to 7:09 min (3-D) (p = 0.005); the readers' confidence was reduced from 2.3 (2-D) to 2.1 (3-D) ( p = 0.013) on a three-point Likert scale. Polyp conspicuity for cleansed submerged lesions was similar to not submerged lesions (p = 0.06). To our knowledge, this study is the first to describe and clinically validate an electronic cleansing algorithm that facilitates low-dose CTC with 24-h limited bowel preparation.

[CT colonography: what radiologists need to know]

In 2008, CT colonography was approved by the American Cancer Society as a technique for screening for colorectal cancer. This approval should be considered an important step in the recognition of the technique, which although still relatively new is already changing some diagnostic algorithms. This update about CT colonography reports the quality parameters necessary for a CT colonographic study to be diagnostic and reviews the technical innovations and colonic preparation for the study. We provide a brief review of the signs and close with a discussion of the current indications for and controversies about the technique.

Colon segmentation for prepless virtual colonoscopy

A novel segmentation framework for a prepless virtual colonoscopy (VC) is presented, which reduces the necessity for colon cleansing before the CT scan. The patient is injected rectally with a water-soluble iodinated contrast medium using manual insufflators and a small rectal catheter. Compared to the air-based contrast medium, this technique can better preserve the color lumen and reduce the partial volume effect. However, the contrast medium, together with the fecal materials and air, makes colon wall segmentation challenging. Our solution makes no assumptions about the shape, size, and location of the fecal material in the colon. This generality allows us to label the fecal material accurately and extract the colon wall reliably. The accuracy of our technique has been verified on 60 human subjects. Compared with current VC technologies, our method is shown to be better in terms of both sensitivity and specificity. Further, in our experiments, the accuracy of the technique was comparable to that of optical colonoscopy results.

Electronic colon-cleansing for CT colonography: diagnostic performance

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether an electronic-colonic-cleansing (ECC) algorithm is beneficial for the diagnostic performance compared to a CT colonography (CTC) evaluation without electronic cleansing in tagged datasets.

METHODS

Two blinded readers evaluated CTC datasets from 79 patients with 153 colorectal polyps confirmed by optical colonoscopy. Cases were read in a randomized order with and without the use of electronic colon-cleansing software. Per-polyp sensitivity, per-polyp/per-patient specificity and reading times (with and without ECC) have been calculated and reported.

RESULTS

Per-polyp sensitivity for polyps >6 mm without using ECC was 60.4% (Reader 1: 59.7%, Reader 2: 61.1%), while polyps >10 mm were detected with a sensitivity of 58.3% (Reader 1: 66.7%, Reader 2: 50%). On electronically cleansed datasets, the sensitivity was 73.6% (Reader 1: 76.4%; Reader 2: 70.8%) for polyps >6 mm and 83.3% (Reader 1: 83.3%; Reader 2: 83.3%), respectively. Per-patient specificity was 75% without using cleansing (Reader 1: 68%, Reader 2: 82%) and 81.5% using ECC (Reader 1: 86%, Reader 2: 77%).

CONCLUSION

Reading CTC cases using ECC software improves sensitivity in detecting clinically relevant colorectal polyps.

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.

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.

Computer-aided detection for CT colonography: update 2007

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an emerging technique for polyp detection in the colon. However, lesion detection can be challenging due to insufficient patient preparation, chosen CT technique or reader imperfection. The primary goal of computer-aided detection (CAD) for CTC is locating possible polyps, and presenting the reader with these polyp candidates. Other goals are sensitivity improvement and reduction of reading time and inter-observer variability. The multistep CAD procedure typically consists of segmentation of the colonic wall (e.g. region growing); selection of intermediate polyp candidates (curvature analysis, sphere fitting, normal analysis, slope density function ...); classification of final candidates for detection and listing suspicious polyps (location, size and volume). Remaining task for the radiologist is the validation or rejection of the polyp candidates. State-of-the-art CAD systems should require minimal or even no user interaction for the extraction of the colonic wall, offer a computation time less than 10-20 min and high sensitivity and specificity for different polyp sizes and shapes, with a low number of false positives. These systems have the potential to increase radiologist's performance and to decrease inter-reader variability. Besides CAD key techniques we also discuss new developments in CAD and describe recent applications facilitating CTC.

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.

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.