Literature DB >> 18029884

Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography.

Perry J Pickhardt1, Andrew D Lee, Andrew J Taylor, Steven J Michel, Thomas C Winter, Anthony Shadid, Ryan J Meiners, Peter J Chase, J Louis Hinshaw, John G Williams, Tyler M Prout, S Hamid Husain, David H Kim.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Disparate results from the existing large CT colonography (CTC) trials suggest that 2D polyp detection is less sensitive than 3D detection, but no direct evidence exists to support this claim. Our goal was to assess the sensitivity of primary 2D polyp detection with cases from the Department of Defense CTC screening trial and compare results with the primary 3D evaluation and previous 2D CTC trials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten radiologists, blinded to polyp findings, retrospectively interpreted 730 consecutive colonoscopy-proven CTC cases in asymptomatic adults using a primary 2D approach, with 3D reserved for problem solving. Primary 2D CTC performance was compared with the primary 3D CTC results from the original trial of 1,233 asymptomatic adults. The 10 2D reviewers were significantly more experienced in CTC interpretation (> 100 cases interpreted) than the six reviewers from the original 3D trial.
RESULTS: Primary 2D CTC sensitivity for adenomas > or = 6 mm was 44.1% (56/127), compared with 85.7% (180/210) at 3D (p < 0.001). Sensitivity of 2D CTC for adenomas > or = 10 mm was 75.0% (27/36) compared with 92.2% (47/51) at 3D (p = 0.027). Similar sensitivity trends were seen for the by-patient analysis and for all polyps at the 6-mm and 10-mm thresholds. By-patient specificity for 2D evaluation at the 10-mm threshold was 98.1% (676/689), compared with 97.4% (1,131/1,161) at 3D evaluation (p = 0.336).
CONCLUSION: Primary 2D CTC is less sensitive than primary 3D CTC for polyp detection in low-prevalence screening cohorts. The disappointing 2D sensitivity in this study was very similar to results obtained with primary 2D evaluation in previous CTC trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18029884     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2291

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


  42 in total

Review 1.  Improving the accuracy of CTC interpretation: computer-aided detection.

Authors:  Ronald M Summers
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2010-04

2.  Carpet lesions detected at CT colonography: clinical, imaging, and pathologic features.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Vu P Lam; Jennifer M Weiss; Gregory D Kennedy; David H Kim
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and interpretation times for a standard and an advanced 3D visualisation technique in CT colonography.

Authors:  Thomas Mang; Frank T Kolligs; Claus Schaefer; Maxmilian F Reiser; Anno Graser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-10-03       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Missed lesions at CT colonography: lessons learned.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2013-02

5.  Screening: CT colonography: time for clinical implementation.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 66.675

6.  Panoramic endoluminal display with minimal image distortion using circumferential radial ray-casting for primary three-dimensional interpretation of CT colonography.

Authors:  Seung Soo Lee; Seong Ho Park; Jin Kook Kim; Namkug Kim; Jeongjin Lee; Beom Jin Park; Young Jun Kim; Min Woo Lee; Ah Young Kim; Hyun Kwon Ha
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  CT colonography for population screening: ready for prime time?

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Comparative performance of a primary-reader and second-reader paradigm of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a low-prevalence screening population.

Authors:  Mototaka Miyake; Gen Iinuma; Stuart A Taylor; Steve Halligan; Tsuyoshi Morimoto; Tamaki Ichikawa; Hideto Tomimatsu; Gareth Beddoe; Kazuro Sugimura; Yasuaki Arai
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 2.374

9.  Potentially Important Extracolonic Findings at Screening CT Colonography: Incidence and Outcomes Data From a Clinical Screening Program.

Authors:  B Dustin Pooler; David H Kim; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  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?

Authors:  Ayso H de Vries; Sebastiaan Jensch; Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Jasper Florie; Chung Y Nio; Roel Truyen; Shandra Bipat; Evelien Dekker; Paul Fockens; Lubbertus C Baak; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-11-04       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.