CT Colonography Data Interpretation: Effect of Different Section Thicknesses-Preliminary Observations

Radiology

Volumn 229, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 791-797

  Lui, Yvonne W ^a   Macari, Michael ^a   Israel, Gary ^a   Bini, Edmund J ^a   Wang, Hao ^b   Babb, James ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Colon neoplasms; Colon neoplasms, CT; Computed tomography (CT), multidetector row; Computed tomography (CT), thin section

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COLON POLYP; COLONOSCOPY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MEASUREMENT; PATIENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; THICKNESS; TIME;

AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; COLONOSCOPY; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0345015530     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2293021404     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Hara AK, Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, et al. CT colonography: single- versus multi-detector row imaging. Radiology 2001; 219:461-465.
2. Macari M, Pedrosa I, Lavelle M, et al. Effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid at CT colonography. Radiology 2001; 218:274-277.
3. Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, et al. CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology 2001; 219:693-698.
4. Rogalla P, Meiri N. CT colonography: data acquisition and patient preparation techniques. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2001; 22:405-412.
5. Dachman AH, Kuniyoshi JK, Boyle CM, et al. CT colonography with three-dimensional problem solving for detection of colonic polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:989-995.
6. Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewspelaere J, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeeck BG. Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results-polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology 2002; 224:393-403.
7. Summers RM, Johnson CD, Pusanik LM, et al. Automated polyp detection at CT colonography: feasibility assessment in a human population. Radiology 2001; 219: 51-59.
8. Macari M, Bini EJ, Xue X, et al. Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology 2002; 224:383-392.
9. Johnson CD, Dachman AH. CT colonography: the next colon screening examination. Radiology 2000; 216:331-341.
10. Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, et al. Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 2001; 219:685-692.
11. Glick S. Double-contrast barium enema for colorectal cancer screening: a review of issues and a comparison with other screening alternatives. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174:1529-1537.
12. McCollough CH, Zink FE. Performance evaluation of a multi-section CT system. Med Phys 1999; 26:2223-2230.
13. Hara AK, Johnson CD, Reed JE, et al. Reducing data size and radiation dose for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168:1181-1184.