Two- versus three-dimensional colon evaluation with recently developed virtual dissection software for CT colonography

Radiology

Volumn 244, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 852-864

  Se, Hyung Kim ^a   Jeong, Min Lee ^a   Hyo, Won Eun ^b   Min, Woo Lee ^a   Joon, Koo Han ^a   Jae, Young Lee ^a   Byung, Ihn Choi ^a  

^a Seoul National University Hospital   (South Korea)

^b Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IOPROMIDE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COLON POLYP; COLONOSCOPY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MCNEMAR TEST; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ADULT; AGED; COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; COLONOSCOPY; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SOFTWARE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 34548056511     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2443060934     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Barish MA, Soto JA, Ferrucci JT. Consensus on current clinical practice of virtual colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:786-792.
2. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2191-2200.
3. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Slater A, et al. Polyp detection with CT colonography: primary 3D endoluminal analysis versus primary 2D transverse analysis with computer-assisted reader software. Radiology 2006;239:759-767.
4. Yasumoto T, Murakami T, Yamamoto H, et al. Assessment of two 3D MDCT colonography protocols for observation of colorectal polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:85-89.
5. Sorstedt E, Persson A, Noren B, et al. Computed tomographic colonography: comparison of two workstations. Acta Radiol 2005; 46:671-678.
6. Beaulieu CF, Jeffrey RB Jr, Karadi C, Paik DS, Napel S. Display modes for CT colonography. JL. Blinded comparison of axial CT and virtual endoscopic and panoramic endoscopic volume-rendered studies. Radiology 1999;212:203-212.
7. Fletcher JG, Luboldt W. CT colonography and MR colonography: current status, research directions and comparison. Eur Radiol 2000;10:786-801.
8. Macari M, Milano A, Lavelle M, Berman P, Megibow AJ. Comparison of time-efficient CT colonography with two- and three-dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1543-1549.
9. Dave SB, Wang G, Brown BP, McFarland EG, Zhang Z, Vannier MW. Straightening the colon with curved cross sections: an approach to CT colonography. Acad Radiol 1999;6:398-410.
10. Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Reed JE, Garry J. Feasibility of planar virtual pathology: a new paradigm in volume-rendered CT colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001;25:864-869.
11. Hoppe H, Quattropani C, Spreng A, Mattich J, Netzer P, Dinkel HP. Virtual colon dissection with CT colonography compared with axial interpretation and conventional colonoscopy: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:1151-1158.
12. Paik DS, Beaulieu CF, Jeffrey RB Jr, Karadi CA, Napel S. Visualization modes for CT colonography using cylindrical and planar map projections. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000;24:179-188.
13. Rottgen R, Fischbach F, Plotkin M, et al. CT colonography using different reconstruction modi. Clin Imaging 2005;29:195-199.
14. Rottgen R, Fischbach F, Plotkin M, et al. Colon dissection: a new three-dimensional reconstruction tool for computed tomography colonography. Acta Radiol 2005;46: 222-226.
15. Dekel D, Durgan J, Fleiter T. Virtual endoscopy (patent pending). Publication no. 2006/ 000925. Geneva, Switzerland: World Intellectual Property Organization, 2006.
16. Park SH, Ha HK, Kim MJ, et al. False-negative results at multi-detector row CT colonography: multivariate analysis of causes for missed lesions. Radiology 2005; 235:495-502.
17. Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Choi JR, Schindler WR. Flat colorectal lesions in asymptomatic adults: implications for screening with CT virtual colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183:1343-1347.
18. Juchems MS, Fleiter TR, Pauls S, Schmidt SA, Brambs HJ, Aschoff AJ. CT colonography: comparison of a colon dissection display versus 3D endoluminal view for the detection of polyps. Eur Radiol 2006;16:68-72.
19. Macari M, Lavelle M, Pedrosa I, et al. Effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid at CT colonography. Radiology 2001; 218:274-277.
20. Dachman AH, Zalis ME. Quality and consistency in CT colonography and research reporting. Radiology 2004;230:319-323.
21. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Radiology 2003;226:24-28.
22. Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 2005;365:305-311.
23. Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL. Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:635-650.
24. Iannaccone R, Catalano C, Mangiapane F, et al. Colorectal polyps: detection with low-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography versus two sequential colonoscopies. Radiology 2005;237:927-937.
25. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997;112:24-28.
26. Johnson KT, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, MacCarty RL, Summers RL. CT colonography using 360-degree virtual dissection: a feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186: 90-95.