Literature DB >> 18414869

Uni- and bidirectional wide angle CT colonography: effect on missed areas, surface visualization, viewing time and polyp conspicuity.

James E East1, Brian P Saunders, Darren Boone, David Burling, Steve Halligan, Stuart A Taylor.   

Abstract

The effect of field of view on mucosal visualisation and reader efficiency during three-dimensional endoluminal CT colonography (CTC) was investigated. Twenty CTC datasets were reviewed at standard 90-degree and "wide" 140-degree viewing angles using customised viewing software (V3D colon; Viatronix), which listed number and size of missed mucosal areas ("missed regions tool") and percentage mucosal visualisation. We compared: (1) unidirectional and bidirectional flythrough using 140- versus 90-degree viewing angles; (2) reader analysis time comparing unidirectional 140-degree flythrough versus bidirectional 90-degree flythrough; (3) paired image snapshots of 12 polyps taken at each field of view were reviewed to assess conspicuity. All patients underwent conventional colonoscopy. Bidirectional 140-degree review reduced the numbers of missed areas by between eight- and 40-fold depending on size category, including those >1,000 mm(2), compared with standard 90-degree bidirectional flythrough (P < 0.001). Combined prone-supine unidirectional 140-degree flythrough and missed area review was 3.8 min faster than 90-degree bidirectional review (9.3 versus 5.5 min, P < 0.0001) for the same surface visualisation. When viewed as pairs, polyps were rated more conspicuous with a 90-degree field of view, P = 0.03. Wide-angle (140-degree) CTC can reduce both numbers of missed areas and review times. However, this may be at the expense of polyp conspicuity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18414869     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-0969-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  18 in total

1.  Three-dimensional endoluminal CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy): comparison of three commercially available systems.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Three-dimensional display modes for CT colonography: conventional 3D virtual colonoscopy versus unfolded cube projection.

Authors:  Frans M Vos; Rogier E van Gelder; Iwo W O Serlie; Jasper Florie; C Yung Nio; Afina S Glas; Frits H Post; Roel Truyen; Frans A Gerritsen; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  CT colonography: comparison of a colon dissection display versus 3D endoluminal view for the detection of polyps.

Authors:  Markus S Juchems; Thorsten R Fleiter; Sandra Pauls; Stefan A Schmidt; Hans-Jürgen Brambs; Andrik J Aschoff
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-06-14       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Time efficiency of CT colonography: 2D vs 3D visualization.

Authors:  Emanuele Neri; Francesca Vannozzi; Paola Vagli; Alex Bardine; Carlo Bartolozzi
Journal:  Comput Med Imaging Graph       Date:  2006-05-26       Impact factor: 4.790

6.  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

7.  Visualization modes for CT colonography using cylindrical and planar map projections.

Authors:  D S Paik; C F Beaulieu; R B Jeffrey; C A Karadi; S Napel
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.826

8.  Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection.

Authors:  Steve Halligan; Douglas G Altman; Susan Mallett; Stuart A Taylor; David Burling; Mary Roddie; Lesley Honeyfield; Justine McQuillan; Hamdan Amin; Jamshid Dehmeshki
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2006-10-01       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  Peter B Cotton; Valerie L Durkalski; Benoit C Pineau; Yuko Y Palesch; Patrick D Mauldin; Brenda Hoffman; David J Vining; William C Small; John Affronti; Douglas Rex; Kenyon K Kopecky; Susan Ackerman; J Steven Burdick; Cecelia Brewington; Mary A Turner; Alvin Zfass; Andrew R Wright; Revathy B Iyer; Patrick Lynch; Michael V Sivak; Harold Butler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-04-14       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Optimizing colonic distention for multi-detector row CT colonography: effect of hyoscine butylbromide and rectal balloon catheter.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Steve Halligan; Vicky Goh; Simon Morley; Paul Bassett; Wendy Atkin; Clive I Bartram
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-08-27       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  2 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.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.