OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of computer-aided detection (CAD) for CT colonography (CTC) with and without electronic cleansing (EC) in a high-risk population tagged with a faecal tagging (FT) protocol. METHODS: Thirty-two patients underwent CTC followed by same-day colonoscopy. All patients underwent bowel preparation and FT with barium and gastrografin. Each CTC dataset was processed with colon CAD with and without EC. Per-polyp sensitivity was calculated. The average number of false-positive (FP) results and their causes were also analysed and compared. RESULTS: Eighty-six polyps were detected in 29 patients. Per-polyp sensitivities of CAD with EC (93.8% and 100%) were higher than those without EC (84.4% and 87.5%) for polyps >or=6 mm and >or=10 mm, respectively. However, the differences were not significant. The average number (6.3) of FPs of CAD with EC was significantly larger than that (3.1) without EC. The distribution of FPs in both CAD settings was also significantly different. The most common cause of FPs was the ileocaecal valve in both datasets. However, untagged faeces was a significantly less common cause of FPs with EC, EC-related artefacts being more common. CONCLUSION: Electronic cleansing has the potential to improve per-polyp sensitivity of CTC CAD, although the significantly larger number of FPs with EC remains to be improved.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of computer-aided detection (CAD) for CT colonography (CTC) with and without electronic cleansing (EC) in a high-risk population tagged with a faecal tagging (FT) protocol. METHODS: Thirty-two patients underwent CTC followed by same-day colonoscopy. All patients underwent bowel preparation and FT with barium and gastrografin. Each CTC dataset was processed with colon CAD with and without EC. Per-polyp sensitivity was calculated. The average number of false-positive (FP) results and their causes were also analysed and compared. RESULTS: Eighty-six polyps were detected in 29 patients. Per-polyp sensitivities of CAD with EC (93.8% and 100%) were higher than those without EC (84.4% and 87.5%) for polyps >or=6 mm and >or=10 mm, respectively. However, the differences were not significant. The average number (6.3) of FPs of CAD with EC was significantly larger than that (3.1) without EC. The distribution of FPs in both CAD settings was also significantly different. The most common cause of FPs was the ileocaecal valve in both datasets. However, untagged faeces was a significantly less common cause of FPs with EC, EC-related artefacts being more common. CONCLUSION: Electronic cleansing has the potential to improve per-polyp sensitivity of CTC CAD, although the significantly larger number of FPs with EC remains to be improved.
Authors: M R Callstrom; C D Johnson; J G Fletcher; J E Reed; D A Ahlquist; W S Harmsen; K Tait; L A Wilson; K E Corcoran Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Nicholas Petrick; Maruf Haider; Ronald M Summers; Srinath C Yeshwant; Linda Brown; Edward M Iuliano; Adeline Louie; J Richard Choi; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Se Hyung Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Joon-Goo Lee; Jong Hyo Kim; Philippe A Lefere; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Se Hyung Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Cheong-Il Shin; Hyo Chul Kim; Joon-Goo Lee; Jong Hyo Kim; Jin Young Choi; Hyo Won Eun; Joon Koo Han; Jae Young Lee; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mark E Baker; Luca Bogoni; Nancy A Obuchowski; Chandra Dass; Renee M Kendzierski; Erick M Remer; David M Einstein; Pascal Cathier; Anna Jerebko; Sarang Lakare; Andrew Blum; Dina F Caroline; Michael Macari Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Igor Trilisky; Kristen Wroblewski; Michael W Vannier; John M Horne; Abraham H Dachman Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Christian Bräuer; Philippe Lefere; Stefaan Gryspeerdt; Helmut Ringl; Ali Al-Mukhtar; Paul Apfaltrer; Dominik Berzaczy; Barbara Füger; Julia Furtner; Christina Müller-Mang; Matthias Pones; Martina Scharitzer; Ramona Woitek; Anno Graser; Michael Weber; Thomas Mang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 5.315