Screening by CT colonography: too early to pass judgment on a nascent technology

Colon polyp detection using smoothed shape operators: preliminary results

Computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithms identify locations in computed tomographic (CT) images of the colon that are most likely to contain polyps. Existing CAD methods treat the CT data as a voxelized, volume image. They estimate a curvature-based feature at the mucosal surface voxels. However, curvature is a smooth notion, while our data are discrete and noisy. As a second order differential quantity, curvature amplifies noise. In this paper, we present the smoothed shape operators method (SSO), which uses a geometry processing approach. We extract a triangle mesh representation of the colon surface, and estimate curvature on this surface using the shape operator. We then smooth the shape operators on the surface iteratively. Throughout, we use techniques explicitly designed for discrete geometry. All our computation occurs on the surface, rather than in the voxel grid. We evaluate our algorithm on patient data and provide free-response receiver-operating characteristic performance analysis over all size ranges of polyps. We also provide confidence intervals for our performance estimates. We compare our performance with the surface normal overlap (SNO) method for the same data. A preliminary evaluation of our method on 35 patients yielded the following results (polyp diameter range; sensitivity; false positives/case): (10mm; 100%; 17.5), (5-10 mm; 89.7%, 21.23), (<5 mm; 59.1%; 23.9) and (overall; 80.3%; 23.9). The evaluation of the SNO method yielded: (10 mm; 75%; 17.5), (5-10 mm; 43.1%; 21.23), (<5 mm; 15.9%; 23.9) and (overall; 38.5%; 23.9).

Computer-assisted reader software versus expert reviewers for polyp detection on CT colonography

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to assess the sensitivity of computer-assisted reader (CAR) software for polyp detection compared with the performance of expert reviewers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A library of colonoscopically validated CT colonography cases were collated and separated into training and test sets according to the time of accrual. Training data sets were annotated in consensus by three expert radiologists who were aware of the colonoscopy report. A subset of 45 training cases containing 100 polyps underwent batch analysis using ColonCAR version 1.2 software to determine the optimum polyp enhancement filter settings for polyp detection. Twenty-five consecutive positive test data sets were subsequently interpreted individually by each expert, who was unaware of the endoscopy report, and before generation of the annotated reference via an unblinded consensus interpretation. ColonCAR version 1.2 software was applied to the test cases, at optimized polyp enhancement filter settings, to determine diagnostic performance. False-positive findings were classified according to importance.

RESULTS

The 25 test cases contained 32 nondiminutive polyps ranging from 6 to 35 mm in diameter. The ColonCAR version 1.2 software identified 26 (81%) of 32 polyps compared with an average sensitivity of 70% for the expert reviewers. Eleven (92%) of 12 polyps > or = 10 mm were detected by ColonCAR version 1.2. All polyps missed by experts 1 (n = 4) and 2 (n = 3) and 12 (86%) of 14 polyps missed by expert 3 were detected by ColonCAR version 1.2. The median number of false-positive highlights per case was 13, of which 91% were easily dismissed.

CONCLUSION

ColonCAR version 1.2 is sensitive for polyp detection, with a clinically acceptable false-positive rate. ColonCAR version 1.2 has a synergistic effect to the reviewer alone, and its standalone performance may exceed even that of experts.

CT colonography: where have we been and where are we going?

Over the past decade, computed tomographic (CT) colonography (also known as virtual colonoscopy) has been used to investigate the colon for colorectal neoplasia. Numerous clinical and technical advances have allowed CT colonography to advance slowly from a research tool to a viable option for colorectal cancer screening. However, substantial controversy remains among radiologists, gastroenterologists, and other clinicians with regard to the current role of CT colonography in clinical practice. On the one hand, all agree there is much excitement about a noninvasive imaging examination that can reliably depict clinically important colorectal lesions. However, this is tempered by results from several recent studies that show the sensitivity of CT colonography may not be as great when performed and the images interpreted by radiologists without expertise and training. The potential to miss important lesions exists; moreover, if polyps cannot be differentiated from folds and residual fecal matter, unnecessary colonoscopy will be performed. In this review, current issues will be discussed regarding colon cancer and the established and reimbursed strategies to screen for it and the past, current, and potential future role of CT colonography.

Colorectal polyps and cancers in asymptomatic average-risk patients: evaluation with CT colonography

PURPOSE

To compare thin-section multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) colonography with conventional colonoscopy in the evaluation of colorectal polyps and cancer in asymptomatic average-risk patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-eight asymptomatic men (age > 50 years) scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were enrolled in this study. CT colonography was followed by conventional colonoscopy, performed on the same day. Supine and prone CT colonography were performed after colonic insufflation with room air. A gastroenterologist measured all polyps, which were categorized as 1-5, 6-9, or over 10 mm. Biopsy and histologic evaluation were performed of all polyps. CT colonography and colonoscopy results were compared for location, size, and morphology of detected lesions. Point estimates and 95% CIs were provided for specificity and sensitivity of CT by using results at conventional colonoscopy as the reference standard.

RESULTS

At colonoscopy, 98 polyps were identified in 39 patients; 21 (21.4%) of 98 were detected at CT colonography. Sensitivity was 11.5% (nine of 78) for polyps 1-5 mm, 52.9% (nine of 17) for polyps 6-9 mm, and 100% (three of three) for polyps over 10 mm. Results at colonoscopy were normal in 29 (42.6%) of 68 patients; at CT colonography, results were correctly identified as normal in 26 of these 29 patients. In one of these patients, a lesion larger than 10 mm was detected at CT colonography. The per-patient specificity of CT was 89.7% (26 of 29; 95% CI: 72.7%, 97.8%). The mean time for CT image interpretation was 9 minutes.

CONCLUSION

In patients at average risk for colorectal cancer, CT colonography is a sensitive and specific screening test for detecting polyps 10 mm or larger; the sensitivity for detecting smaller polyps is decreased. Examination findings can be interpreted in a clinically feasible amount of time.

Virtual colonoscopy: clinical results

CT colonography is an evolving noninvasive imaging technique that allows detection of colorectal polyps and cancers. When assessing the clinical results of this test, several points need to be emphasized. First, as computed tomography (CT) technology improves, so will clinical results. Therefore, earlier results reporting the accuracy of CT colonography may not be applicable to the current state of the art. Second, as clinical experience has grown, an understanding of the limitations and pitfalls of the technique has increased. A learning curve is involved and, with increased experience, results should improve. This article will focus on the evolving clinical results of CT colonography.

Effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid at CT colonography

The effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid during computed tomographic (CT) colonography was evaluated. Forty-two patients received either a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution preparation or a phospho-soda preparation the day prior to CT colonography. The amount of residual fluid was calculated for each patient. On average, a phospho-soda preparation provided significantly less residual fluid than a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution preparation.

Comparison of time-efficient CT colonography with two- and three-dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps

OBJECTIVE

We compared the findings of time-efficient CT colonography with complete two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in detecting colorectal polyps.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Forty-two patients undergoing colonoscopy screening were examined with CT colonography before endoscopy. Data were examined following one of two methods. In method 1, axial 2D data sets were examined in a cine mode. If findings were suggestive of abnormality, focal areas were examined with 3D CT colonography. In method 2, data sets were examined exactly as in method 1, and subsequent to that review, data sets were examined with simultaneous 3D "fly-through" CT colonography (surface-rendered images) and multiplanar reformatted images. The time required to examine CT colonography using each technique was recorded and abnormal findings were documented. Results of methods 1 and 2 were compared with findings on colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy detected 16 polyps in 13 patients (polyp size, 2-10 mm). Ten polyps measured 5 mm or less, five measured between 6 and 9 mm, and one measured 10 mm or more. Using method 1, two of 10 polyps measuring less than 5 mm, three of five polyps measuring between 6 and 9 mm, and one polyp measuring 10 mm were detected. We noted no false-positive polyps. Average evaluation time was 16 min. With method 2, the same polyps were seen as with method 1. No additional polyps were detected, and the average evaluation time was 40 min.

CONCLUSION

Axial 2D CT colonography can be performed quickly and is comparable with complete 2D and 3D CT colonography in detecting colorectal polyps.