Computed tomographic colonography: Automated tool for polyp measurement delivering on patient risk stratification

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 504-510

  Bielen, Didier ^a   Vanslembrouck, Ragna ^a   De Keyzer, Frederik ^a   Vandenhout, Hilde ^a   Guendel, Lutz ^b   Van Cutsem, Eric ^a   Marchal, Guy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b SIEMENS AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Colonography; Colonoscopy; Computed tomography; Measurements; Phantom studies; Virtual CT colonography

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; ENDOSCOPY; PHANTOMS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

AUTOMATED TOOLS; COLONOGRAPHY; COLONOSCOPY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CT COLONOGRAPHY; MEASUREMENT TOOLS; PHANTOM STUDIES; RISK STRATIFICATION; VIRTUAL CT COLONOGRAPHY;

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; ANAMNESIS; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COLON POLYP; COLONOSCOPY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ENDOSCOPY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT REFERRAL; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RECTUM ADENOMA; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SIMULATION; STRATIFICATION; TUMOR VOLUME; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HOSPITALIZATION; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; OUTPATIENT; RADIOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; OUTPATIENTS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SOFTWARE; SOFTWARE VALIDATION;

EID: 49949111079     PISSN: 03638715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e318136e2ba     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Boyle P, Ferlay J. Cancer incidence and mortality in Europe, 2004. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:481-488.
2. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2005. Ann Oncol. 2005;55:10-30.
3. Sant M, Aareleid T, Berrino F, et al. EUROCARE-3: survival of cancer patients diagnosed 1990-94 - results and commentary. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(suppl 5):v61-118.
4. Morson BC. Factors influencing the prognosis of early cancer of the rectum. Proc R Soc Med. 1966;59:607-608.
5. Stryker SJ, Wolff BG, Culp CE, et al. Natural history of untreated colonic polyps. Gastroenterology. 1987;93:1009-1013.
6. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY, et al. Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:169-174.
7. Johnson DA, Gurney MS, Volpe RJ, et al. A prospective study of the prevalence of colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic patients with an age-related risk. Am J Gastroenterol. 1990;85:969-974.
8. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, et al. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:162-168.
9. Atkin WS, Morson BC, Cuzick J. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas. N Engl J Med. 1992;326: 658-662.
10. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977-1981.
11. Muto T, Bussey HJ, Morson BC. The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer. 1975;36:2251-2270.
12. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:594-642.
13. Fletcher JG, Luboldt W. CT colonography and MR colonography: current status, research directions and comparison. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:786-801.
14. Luboldt W, Fletcher JG, Vogl TJ. Colonography: current status, research directions and challenges. Update 2002. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:502-524.
15. 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.
16. Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Kim JY, et al. Polyp size at CT colonography after electronic subtraction cleansing in an anthropomorphic colon phantom. Radiology. 2005;236:118-124.
17. Burling D, Halligan S, Altman DG, et al. Polyp measurement and size categorisation by CT colonography: effect of observer experience in a multi-centre setting. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1737-1744.
18. Burling D, Halligan S, Roddie ME, et al. Computed tomography colonography: automated diameter and volume measurement of colonic polyps compared with a manual technique - in vitro study. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005;29:387-393.
19. Burling D, Halligan S, Taylor AJ, et al. Polyp measurement by CT colonography: effect of viewing conditions and computer-aided measurements on inter- and intra-observer agreement, and agreement with colonoscopy. Presented at: 4th International Workshop on Multislice CT and 3D Imaging; November 2003; Rome, Italy.
20. Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, McFarland EG, et al. Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays. Radiology. 2005;236:872-878.
21. Pickhardt PJ, Lehman VT, Winter TC, et al. Polyp volume versus linear size measurements at CT colonography: implications for noninvasive surveillance of unresected colorectal lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:1605-1610.
22. Fletcher JG, Booya F, Melton Z, et al. Automated polyp measurement with CT colonography: preliminary observations in a phantom colon model. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:945-952.
23. Taylor SA, Slater A, Halligan S, et al. CT colonography: automated measurement of colonic polyps compared with manual techniques - human in vitro study. Radiology. 2007;242:120-128.
24. 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.
25. van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Serlie IW, et al. CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction. Radiology. 2002;224:25-33.
26. Whiting BR, McFarland EG, Brink JA. Influence of image acquisition parameters on CT artifacts and polyp depiction in spiral CT colonography: in vitro evaluation. Radiology. 2000;217:165-172.
27. Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology. 2005;236:3-9.
28. Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C, et al. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut. 2004;53:277-283.
29. Shinya H, Wolff WI. Morphology, anatomic distribution and cancer potential of colonic polyps. Ann Surg. 1979;190:679-683.
30. Burling D, Halligan S, Taylor S, et al. Polyp measurement using CT colonography: agreement with colonoscopy and effect of viewing conditions on interobserver and intraobserver agreement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:1597-1604.
31. Gopalswamy N, Shenoy VN, Choudhry U, et al. Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate? Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;46:497-502.
32. Schoen RE, Gerber LD, Margulies C. The pathologic measurement of polyp size is preferable to the endoscopic estimate. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;46:492-496.
33. Fennerty MB, Davidson J, Emerson SS, et al. Are endoscopic measurements of colonic polyps reliable? Am J Gastroenterol. 1993; 88:496-500.
34. Waye JD. The accuracy of endoscopic estimates: what is large? What is small? Am J Gastroenterol. 1993;88:483-484.