Literature DB >> 19064206

Conspicuity of colorectal polyps at CT colonography: visual assessment, CAD performance, and the important role of polyp height.

Ronald M Summers1, Suzanne M Frentz, Jiamin Liu, Jianhua Yao, Linda Brown, Adeline Louie, Duncan S Barlow, Donald W Jensen, Andrew J Dwyer, Perry J Pickhardt, Nicholas Petrick.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: The factors that influence the conspicuity of polyps on computed tomographic (CT) colonography (CTC) are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to compare radiologists' visual assessment of polyp conspicuity to quantitative image features and show the relationship between visual conspicuity and the detection of colonic polyps by computer-aided detection (CAD) on CTC.
METHODS: One polyp (size range 6-10 mm) was selected from the CTC examination of each of 29 patients from a larger cohort. All patients underwent oral contrast-enhanced CTC with same-day optical colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. The polyps were analyzed by a previously validated CAD system and placed into one of two groups (detected [n = 12] or not detected [n = 17] by CAD). The study population was intentionally enriched with polyps that were not detected by the CAD system. Four board-certified radiologists, blinded to the CAD results, reviewed two- and three-dimensional CTC images of the polyps and scored the conspicuity of the polyps using a 4-point scale (0 = least conspicuous, 3 = most conspicuous). Polyp height and width were measured by a trained observer. A t-test (two-tailed, unpaired equal variance) was done to determine statistical significance. Intra- and interobserver variabilities of the conspicuity scores were assessed using the weighted kappa test. Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship of conspicuity to polyp height and width.
RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was found between the average conspicuity scores for polyps that were detected by CAD compared to those that were not (2.3 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.4 +/- 0.8) (P = .004). There was moderate intraobserver agreement of the conspicuity scores (weighted kappa 0.57 +/- 0.09). Interobserver agreement was fair (average weighted kappa for six pair-wise comparisons, 0.38 +/- 0.15). Conspicuity was correlated with manual measurement of polyp height (r(2) = 0.38-0.56, P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: This CAD system tends to detect 6-10 mm polyps that are more visually conspicuous. Polyp height is a major determinant of visual conspicuity. The generalizability of these findings to other CAD systems is currently unknown. Nevertheless, CAD developers may need to specifically target flatter and less conspicuous polyps for CAD to better assist the radiologist to find polyps in this clinically important size category.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19064206      PMCID: PMC3476832          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.06.007

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


  22 in total

1.  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

2.  The effect of diagnostic confidence on the probability of optical colonoscopic confirmation of potential polyps detected on CT colonography: prospective assessment in 1,339 asymptomatic adults.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Pamela A Nugent; William R Schindler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Psychophysical studies of detection errors in chest radiology.

Authors:  G Revesz; H L Kundel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1977-06       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  False-negative results at multi-detector row CT colonography: multivariate analysis of causes for missed lesions.

Authors:  Seong Ho Park; Hyun Kwon Ha; Min-Jeong Kim; Kyoung Won Kim; Ah Young Kim; Dong Hyun Yang; Moon-Gyu Lee; Pyo Nyun Kim; Yong Moon Shin; Suk-Kyun Yang; Seung-Jae Myung; Young Il Min
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography.

Authors:  Brian P Mulhall; Ganesh R Veerappan; Jeffrey L Jackson
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-04-19       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Contrast gradient and the detection of lung nodules.

Authors:  H L Kundel; G Revesz; L Toto
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1979 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.016

7.  Flat colorectal lesions in asymptomatic adults: implications for screening with CT virtual colonoscopy.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Pamela A Nugent; J Richard Choi; William R Schindler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Visual search of mammographic images: influence of lesion subtlety.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Understanding interpretive errors in radiologists learning computed tomography colonography.

Authors:  Jeff L Fidler; Joel G Fletcher; C Daniel Johnson; James E Huprich; John M Barlow; Franklin Earnest; Brian J Bartholmai
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Characterization of lesions missed on interpretation of CT colonography using a 2D search method.

Authors:  Thomas M Gluecker; J G Fletcher; Timothy J Welch; Robert L MacCarty; William S Harmsen; Jeffrey R Harrington; Duane Ilstrup; Lynn A Wilson; Kay E Corcoran; C Daniel Johnson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  6 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

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.  ACRIN CT colonography trial: does reader's preference for primary two-dimensional versus primary three-dimensional interpretation affect performance?

Authors:  Amy K Hara; Meridith Blevins; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Abraham H Dachman; Mark D Kuo; Christine O Menias; Bettina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin J Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; Judy Yee; Benjamin A Herman; C Daniel Johnson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  EMPLOYING TOPOGRAPHICAL HEIGHT MAP IN COLONIC POLYP MEASUREMENT AND FALSE POSITIVE REDUCTION.

Authors:  Jianhua Yao; Jiang Li; Ronald M Summers
Journal:  Pattern Recognit       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 7.740

6.  Appearances of screen-detected versus symptomatic colorectal cancers at CT colonography.

Authors:  Andrew A Plumb; Fiona Pathiraja; Claire Nickerson; Katherine Wooldrage; David Burling; Stuart A Taylor; Wendy S Atkin; Steve Halligan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 5.315

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.