Literature DB >> 16777559

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

Stuart Taylor1, Andrew Slater, Leslie Honeyfield, David Burling, Steve Halligan.   

Abstract

RATIONAL AND
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of colonic distension on polyp measurement accuracy and reader agreement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board permission was obtained. A sealed colectomy specimen from a patient with familial adenomatous polyposis was scanned using a four-detector-row computed tomography (CT) after half and full air distension. A histopathologist measured the maximum dimension of all polyps in the opened specimen. Digital photographs and line drawings were used to individually match polyps visible in the CT datasets. Two observers (radiologist, technician) independently estimated the maximum polyp diameter using both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) surface rendering. Full-distension measurements were repeated 1 week later. Accuracy was analyzed using paired t-test. Observer agreement was assessed using Bland Altman limits of agreement.
RESULTS: Twenty-three polyps (4-15 mm) were identified. 2D measurements were significantly smaller than histologic size at both half distension (radiologist first): mean difference [md] -1.1 mm, md -1.7 mm, and full distension md -1.1 mm, md 1.4 mm (all P < .001). 3D measurements were not significantly different from true size other than after half distension for the technician (md -0.7 mm, P = .01). 95% Bland Altman limits for interobserver agreement were narrower after full distension, and better using 2D (half-distension span of agreement approximately 4.7 mm and 6 mm for 2D and 3D, respectively). 2D intraobserver span of agreement between half and full distension was approximately 3.8 mm and 3.2 mm for the radiologist and technician, respectively, compared with 6.2 mm and 5.5 mm using 3D.
CONCLUSION: 3D polyp measurement is more accurate than 2D. However, in the presence of suboptimal distension, inter- and intraobserver agreement is superior using 2D.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16777559     DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2006.03.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  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.  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

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

Authors:  Markus M Obmann; Chansik An; Amanda Schaefer; Yuxin Sun; Zhen J Wang; Judy Yee; Benjamin M Yeh
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Chemoprevention of familial adenomatous polyposis.

Authors:  Patrick M Lynch
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 2.375

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

Authors:  Samir Gupta; Valerie Durkalski; Peter Cotton; Don C Rockey
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 11.382

6.  Computed Tomography Colonography Phantom: Construction, Validation and Literature Review.

Authors:  Lukas Lambert; Alena Lambertova; Jan Danes; Gabriela Grusova
Journal:  Iran J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 0.212

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

Authors:  Lukas Lambert; Petr Ourednicek; Jan Briza; Walter Giepmans; Jiri Jahoda; Lukas Hruska; Jan Danes
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 2.984

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.