Literature DB >> 16714648

Polyp measurement using CT colonography: agreement with colonoscopy and effect of viewing conditions on interobserver and intraobserver agreement.

David Burling1, Steve Halligan, Stuart Taylor, Duncan J Brennand, Douglas G Altman, Paul Bassett, Wendy Atkin, Clive I Bartram.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This article presents inter- and intraobserver agreement for estimates of polyp diameter using CT colonography, including the effects of different visualization displays and prior experience.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four observers, three of whom had prior experience with CT colonography, estimated the maximum diameter of 48 polyps using three different visualization displays: 2D colonography window, 2D abdominal window, and 3D surface rendering. Each re-measured a subset of 10 polyps. Polyps measured 2 to 12 mm according to a colonoscopic reference. Inter- and intraobserver agreement and agreement with the reference measurement were determined using the Bland-Altman method, paired Student's t testing, analysis of variance, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and by calculating the components of variance.
RESULTS: CT measurements overestimated polyp diameter, a phenomenon found least using the 2D abdominal display. Generally, 95% limits of agreement encompassed different size categories for individual polyps: the widest spanned 14.6 mm (-4.6 mm to 10.0 mm) for an experienced observer using the 3D display. When using the 2D abdominal display, no significant difference was found between estimates and the reference value for the other two experienced observers (p = 0.83 and 0.23). All the observers' measurements were significantly different from the reference when using the 3D display (p < 0.001). The novice was significantly different from the experienced observers in some analyses. Inter- and intraobserver agreement were poorest for the 3D display.
CONCLUSION: Measurement of polyp diameter from CT colonography is subject to variation contingent on the observer's experience and the viewing display used. Although 3D visualization display is commonly used for polyp detection, it should not be used for measurement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16714648     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0171

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  9 in total

Review 1.  Polyp size measurement at CT colonography: what do we know and what do we need to know?

Authors:  Ronald M Summers
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Andrea Laghi; Philippe Lefere; Steve Halligan; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  [CT colonography: techniques of visualization and findings].

Authors:  J Wessling; W Heindel
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 0.635

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

Authors:  S Punwani; S Halligan; P Irving; S Bloom; A Bungay; R Greenhalgh; J Godbold; S A Taylor; D G Altman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-01-04       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Endoscopic estimation of tumor size in early gastric cancer.

Authors:  Jeongmin Choi; Sang Gyun Kim; Jong Pil Im; Joo Sung Kim; Hyun Chae Jung
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences.

Authors:  Ayso H de Vries; Shandra Bipat; Evelien Dekker; Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Jasper Florie; Paul Fockens; Roel van der Kraan; Elizabeth M Mathus-Vliegen; Johannes B Reitsma; Roel Truyen; Frans M Vos; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  M H Liedenbaum; A F van Rijn; A H de Vries; H M Dekker; M Thomeer; C J van Marrewijk; L Hol; M G W Dijkgraaf; P Fockens; P M M Bossuyt; E Dekker; J Stoker
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers.

Authors:  Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Ayso H de Vries; Steve Halligan; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Abraham H Dachman; Evelien Dekker; Jasper Florie; Stefaan S Gryspeerdt; Sebastiaan Jensch; C Daniel Johnson; Andrea Laghi; Stuart A Taylor; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  CT colonography: size reduction of submerged colorectal polyps due to electronic cleansing and CT-window settings.

Authors:  Christian Bräuer; Philippe Lefere; Stefaan Gryspeerdt; Helmut Ringl; Ali Al-Mukhtar; Paul Apfaltrer; Dominik Berzaczy; Barbara Füger; Julia Furtner; Christina Müller-Mang; Matthias Pones; Martina Scharitzer; Ramona Woitek; Anno Graser; Michael Weber; Thomas Mang
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 5.315

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.