Literature DB >> 16908674

Detection of colorectal polyps: comparison of multi-detector row CT and MR colonography in a colon phantom.

Johannes Wessling1, Roman Fischbach, Alexandra Borchert, Harald Kugel, Thomas Allkemper, Nani Osada, Walter Heindel.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare multi-detector row (four- and 16-section) computed tomography (CT), including a low-dose protocol, with high-field-strength (1.5- and 3.0-T) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for reader detection of colorectal polyps in a colon phantom.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A colon phantom with simulated haustral folds and 10 polyps of varying size (2.0-8.0 mm) was imaged at four- and 16-section CT (section thicknesses of 1.25 and 0.75 mm, reconstruction increments of 0.8 and 0.7 mm, and 100 and 10 mAs, respectively, and 120 kV for both) and at 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging (three-dimensional gradient-recalled echo sequence, section thickness of 1.4 mm). Three-dimensional endoluminal images were assessed by 10 reviewers for each modality regarding polyp detection. Comparisons of sensitivities were performed by using logistic regression.
RESULTS: Overall, polyps were detected with a sensitivity of 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 80%, 94%) at four-section CT, 92% (95% CI: 87%, 97%) at 16-section CT, 56% (95% CI: 46%, 66%) at 1.5-T MR imaging, and 55% (95% CI: 45%, 65%) at 3.0-T MR imaging. The detection of polyps at least 4 mm in diameter was not influenced by the modality or radiation dose (sensitivity of 100%). CT performed in low-dose mode depicted all polyps with a diameter of at least 3 mm. Polyps smaller than 3 mm in diameter were detected with a sensitivity of 7.5% (1.5-T MR imaging), 22.5% (3.0-T MR imaging), and 20% (low-dose CT); detection rates were significantly greater (P < .001) with normal-dose CT (four section, 67.5%; 16 section, 82.5%). Increased spatial resolution (with CT) and higher field strength (with MR imaging) had no significant effect on polyp detection.
CONCLUSION: With both multi-detector row CT and MR imaging, readers detected polyps above the clinically relevant threshold diameter of 6 mm, with similar sensitivities. (c) RSNA, 2006.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16908674     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2411050292

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  3 in total

Review 1.  [MR colography: technique, indications, and findings].

Authors:  T C Lauenstein; S Kinner; S C Ladd
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  Investigating the relationship between virtual cystoscopy image quality and CT slice thickness.

Authors:  S Lalondrelle; S A Sohaib; I A Castellano; D Mears; R Huddart; V Khoo
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.