Literature DB >> 18206622

Manual and automated polyp measurement comparison of CT colonography with optical colonoscopy.

Jun Yong Jeong1, Min Ju Kim, Sam Soo Kim.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess (1) the agreement of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) manual and automated polyp linear diameter measurements at CT colonography (CTC), with optical colonoscopic equivalents and (2) intraobserver and interobserver agreement of the CTC measurements.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the same CTC system, two radiologists independently measured the maximum linear diameter of 44 polyps (reference size 3-15 mm) matched on CTC and optical colonoscopy: manual 2D optimized multiplanar reformatted planes with standard window settings (level 1500 HU, width -200 HU), manual 3D measurement with software calipers and automated 3D measurement with software. After 2 weeks, polyps were measured again. Compatibility of CTC measurement with that of optical colonoscopy and measurement reproducibility was assessed statistically.
RESULTS: In the manual measurement, 44 polyps were analyzed and 41 in automated measurement; three polyps could not be extracted. Although the measurement difference was noted for automated, manual 3D, and manual 2D measurements, statistically supported agreement with optical colonoscopic measurement was noted only with manual 2D measurement for both observers. However, 95% limits of agreement were wide for all the measurement methods. When categorized according to the optical colonoscopic measurement, manual 2D, 3D, and automated measurements showed "good" agreement. Although intraobserver and interobserver agreement was good with manual measurement, intraobserver and interobserver agreement was excellent with automated measurement.
CONCLUSION: Manual 2D measurements demonstrated trends of better approximation to optical colonoscopy measurements than manual 3D or automated measurements. And automated measurement eliminated intraobserver and interobserver variability. For noninvasive CTC surveillance, manual 2D measurements are expected to measure medium-sized polyps with sufficient agreement with optical colonoscopic measurements and excellent intraobserver and interobserver variability, especially if combined with automated measurement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18206622     DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2007.10.006

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


  6 in total

1.  Is application of an internal anterior pelvic fixator anatomically feasible?

Authors:  David J Merriman; William M Ricci; Christopher M McAndrew; Michael J Gardner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  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

3.  Automated measurement of colorectal polyp height at CT colonography: hyperplastic polyps are flatter than adenomatous polyps.

Authors:  Ronald M Summers; Jiamin Liu; Jianhua Yao; Linda Brown; J Richard Choi; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Quantitative radiology: automated measurement of polyp volume in computed tomography colonography using Hessian matrix-based shape extraction and volume growing.

Authors:  Mark L Epstein; Piotr R Obara; Yisong Chen; Junchi Liu; Amin Zarshenas; Nazanin Makkinejad; Abraham H Dachman; Kenji Suzuki
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2015-10

5.  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

6.  The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography.

Authors:  Emanuele Neri; Steve Halligan; Mikael Hellström; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Daniele Regge; Jaap Stoker; Stuart Taylor; Andrea Laghi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-09-15       Impact factor: 5.315

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.