Effect of slice thickness and primary 2D versus 3D virtual dissection on colorectal lesion detection at CT colonography in 452 asymptomatic adults

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 189, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 672-680

  Johnson, C Daniel ^a   Fletcher, Joel G ^a   MacCarty, Robert L ^a   Mandrekar, Jay N ^a   Harmsen, William S ^a   Limburg, Paul J ^a   Wilson, Lynn A ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Colonoscopy; Colorectal cancer; CT colonography; Oncologic imaging; Virtual dissection display

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COLONOSCOPY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM INJURY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANATOMY, CROSS-SECTIONAL; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 34548274445     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2354     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Thomeer M, Carbone I, Bosmans H, et al. Stool tagging applied in thin-slice multidetector computed tomography colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003; 27:132-139
2. Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ, MacCarty RL, Ahlquist DA, Reed JE. Optimization of CT colonography technique: a prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology 2000; 216:704-711
3. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Bartram CI, et al. Multi-detector row CT colonography: effect of collimation, pitch, and orientation on polyp detection in a human colectomy specimen. Radiology 2003; 229:109-118
4. Lui YW, Macari M, Israel G, Bini EJ, Wang H, Babb J. CT colonography data interpretation: effect of different section thicknesses - preliminary observations. Radiology 2003; 229:791-797
5. 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 2000; 174:1543-1549
6. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, et al. Colorectal cancer screening by CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preference. Radiology 2003; 227:378-384
7. Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D, et al. Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol 2002; 12:1410-1415
8. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Saunders BP, Bassett P, Vance M, Bartram CI. Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. AJR 2003; 181:913-921
9. Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98:578-585
10. 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
11. Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA, et al. Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003; 125:311-319
12. Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004; 291:1713-1719
13. Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. The Lancet 2005; 365:305-311
14. Johnson KT, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, MacCarty RL, Summers RL. CT colonography using 360-degree virtual dissection: a feasibility study. AJR 2006; 186:90-95
15. 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
16. Hoppe H, Quattropani C, Spreng A, Mattich J, Netzer P, Dinkel H-P. Virtual colon dissection with CT colonography compared with axial interpretation and conventional colonoscopy: preliminary results. AJR 2004; 182:1151-1158
17. Fletcher JG, Booya F, Summers RM, et al. Comparative performance of two polyp detection systems on CT colonography. AJR 2007; 189:277-282
18. McCollough CH. Optimization of multidetector array CT acquisition parameters for CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 2002; 27:253-259
19. van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Florie J, et al. CT colonography: feasibility of substantial dose reduction - comparison of medium to very low doses in identical patients. Radiology 2004; 232:611-620
20. Fletcher JG, Booya F, Johnson CD, Ahlquist D. CT colonography: unraveling the twists and turns. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2005; 21:90-98
21. Dachman AH, Kuniyoshi JK, Boyle CM, et al. CT colonography with three-dimensional problem solving for detection of colonic polyps. AJR 1998; 171:989-995
22. Bodily KD, Fletcher JG, Engelby T, et al. Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography. Acad Radiol 2005; 12:67-73
23. Mani A, Napel S, Paik DS, et al. Computed tomography colonography: feasibility of computer-aided polyp detection in a "first reader" paradigm. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004; 28:318-326
24. Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Mangiapane F, Piacentini F, Iori S, Passariello R. Experimental colonic phantom for the evaluation of the optimal scanning technique for CT colonography using multidetector spiral CT equipment. Eur Radiol 2003; 13:459-466
25. Wessling J, Fischbach R, Meier N, et al. CT colonography: protocol optimization with multidetector row CT - study in an anthropomorphic colon phantom. Radiology 2003; 228:753-759
26. Embleton KV, Nicholson DA, Hufton AP, Jackson A. Optimization of scanning parameters for multi-slice CT colonography: experiments with synthetic and animal phantoms. Clin Radiol 2003; 58:955-963
27. Johnson KT, Johnson CD, Anderson SM, Bruesewitz MR, McCollough CH. CT colonography: determination of optimal CT technique using a novel colon phantom. Abdom Imaging 2004; 29:173-176
28. Won HJ, Choi BI, Kim SH, Kim YI, Youn BJ, Han JK. Protocol optimization of multidetector computed tomography colonography using pig colonic phantoms. Invest Radiol 2005; 40:27-32
29. Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Gopal DV Surface visualization at 3D endoluminal CT colonography: degree of coverage and implications for polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2006; 130:1582-1587
30. 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
31. Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL. Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography. Ann In tern Med 2005; 142:635-650
32. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156:209-213
33. Shaw NJ, Hendry M, Eden OB. Inter-observer variation in interpretation of chest X-rays. Scott Med J 1990; 35:140-141
34. Markus JB, Somers S, O'Malley BP, Stevenson GW. Double-contrast barium enema studies: effect of multiple reading on perception error. Radiology 1990; 175:155-156
35. Wakeley CJ, Jones AM, Kabala JE, Prine D, Goddard PR. Audit of the value of double reading magnetic resonance imaging films. Br J Radiol 1995; 68:358-360
36. Robinson PJ. Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the roentgen image. Br J Radiol 1997; 70:1085-1098
37. Siegle RL, Baram EM, Reuter SR, Clarke EA, Lancaster JL, McMahan CA. Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals. Acad Radiol 1998; 5:148-154