Polyp detection with CT colonography: primary 3D endoluminal analysis versus primary 2D transverse analysis with computer-assisted reader software

Computed Tomography in Emergency Diagnosis and Management Considerations of Small Bowel Obstruction for Surgical vs. Non-surgical Approach

BACKGROUND

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) accounts for 15% of abdominal pain complaints referred to emergency departments and imposes significant financial burdens on the healthcare system. The absence of passage of flatus or stool and abdominal distention are reported as the most common symptom and a sign of SBO, respectively. Patients who do not demonstrate severe clinical or imaging findings are typically treated with conservative approaches. Patients with clinical signs of sepsis or physical findings of peritonitis are often instantly transferred to the operating room without supplementary imaging assessment. However, in cases where symptoms are non-specific, or the physical examination is challenging, such as in cases with loss of consciousness, the diagnosis can be complicated. This paper discusses the key findings detectable on Computed tomography (CT), which are vital for the emergent triage, proper treatment, and decision making in patients with speculated SBO.

METHOD

Narrative review of the literature.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

CT plays a key role in emergent triage, proper treatment, and decision making. It provides high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in the detection of early-stage obstruction and acute intestinal vascular compromise. It can also differentiate between various etiologies of this entity which is considered an important criterion in the triage of patients into surgical vs. non-surgical treatment. There are multiple CT findings, such as mesenteric edema, lack of the small-bowel feces, bowel wall thickening, fat stranding in the mesentery, and intraperitoneal fluid, which are predictive of urgent surgical exploration.

CT colonography after incomplete optical colonoscopy: bowel preparation quality at same-day vs. deferred examination

PURPOSE

To objectively compare the volume, density, and distribution of luminal fluid for same-day oral-contrast-enhanced CTC following incomplete optical colonoscopy (OC) vs. deferred CTC on a separate day utilizing a dedicated CTC bowel preparation.

METHODS

HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved retrospective study compared 103 same-day CTC studies after incomplete OC (utilizing 30 mL oral diatrizoate) against 151 CTC examinations performed on a separate day after failed OC using a dedicated CTC bowel preparation (oral magnesium citrate/dilute barium/diatrizoate the evening before). A subgroup of 15 patients who had both same-day CTC and separate-day routine CTC was also identified and underwent separate analysis. CTC exams were analyzed for opacified fluid distribution within the GI tract, as well as density and volume. Data were analyzed utilizing Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests.

RESULTS

Opacified luminal fluid extended to the rectum in 56% (58/103) of same-day CTC vs. 100% (151/151) of deferred separate-day CTC (p < 0.0001). For same-day CTC, contrast failed to reach the colon in 11% (11/103) and failed to reach the left colon in 26% (27/103). Volumetric colonic fluid segmentation for fluid analysis (successful in 80 same-day and 147 separate-day cases) showed significantly more fluid in the same-day cohort (mean, 227 vs. 166 mL; p < 0.0001); the actual difference is underestimated due to excluded cases. Mean colonic fluid attenuation was significantly lower in the same-day cohort (545 vs. 735 HU; p < 0.0001). Similar findings were identified in the smaller cohort with direct intra-patient CTC comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicated CTC bowel preparation on a separate day following incomplete OC results in a much higher quality examination compared with same-day CTC.

Capsule endoscopy: Current practice and future directions

Capsule endoscopy (CE) has transformed investigation of the small bowel providing a non-invasive, well tolerated means of accurately visualising the distal duodenum, jejunum and ileum. Since the introduction of small bowel CE thirteen years ago a high volume of literature on indications, diagnostic yields and safety profile has been presented. Inclusion in national and international guidelines has placed small bowel capsule endoscopy at the forefront of investigation into suspected diseases of the small bowel. Most commonly, small bowel CE is used in patients with suspected bleeding or to identify evidence of active Crohn’s disease (CD) (in patients with or without a prior history of CD). Typically, CE is undertaken after upper and lower gastrointestinal flexible endoscopy has failed to identify a diagnosis. Small bowel radiology or a patency capsule test should be considered prior to CE in those at high risk of strictures (such as patients known to have CD or presenting with obstructive symptoms) to reduce the risk of capsule retention. CE also has a role in patients with coeliac disease, suspected small bowel tumours and other small bowel disorders. Since the advent of small bowel CE, dedicated oesophageal and colon capsule endoscopes have expanded the fields of application to include the investigation of upper and lower gastrointestinal disorders. Oesophageal CE may be used to diagnose oesophagitis, Barrett’s oesophagus and varices but reliability in identifying gastroduodenal pathology is unknown and it does not have biopsy capability. Colon CE provides an alternative to conventional colonoscopy for symptomatic patients, while a possible role in colorectal cancer screening is a fascinating prospect. Current research is already addressing the possibility of controlling capsule movement and developing capsules which allow tissue sampling and the administration of therapy.

Three-dimensional representation software as image enhancement tool in small-bowel capsule endoscopy: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional imaging in capsule endoscopy is not currently feasible due to hardware limitations. However, software algorithms that enable three-dimensional reconstruction in capsule endoscopy are available.

METHODS

Feasibility study. A phantom was designed to test the accuracy of three-dimensional reconstruction. Thereafter, 192 small-bowel capsule endoscopy images (of vascular: 50; inflammatory: 73; protruding structures: 69) were reviewed with the aid of a purpose-built three-dimensional reconstruction software. Seven endoscopists rated visualisation improved or non-improved. Subgroup analyses performed for diagnostic category, diagnosis, image surface morphology and colour and SBCE equipment used (PillCam(®) vs. MiroCam(®)).

RESULTS

Overall, phantom experiments showed that the three-dimensional reconstruction software was accurate at 90% of red, 70% of yellow and 45% of white phantom models. Enhanced visualisation for 56% of vascular, 23% of inflammatory and <10% of protruding structures was noted (P=0.007, 0.172 and 0.008, respectively). Furthermore, three-dimensional software application enhanced 53.7% of red, 21.8% of white, 17.3% of red and white, and 9.2% of images of lesions with colour similar to that of the surrounding mucosa, P<0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of a three-dimensional reconstruction software in capsule endoscopy leads to image enhancement for a significant proportion of vascular, but less so for inflammatory and protruding lesions. Until optics technology allows hardware-enabled three-dimensional reconstruction, it seems a plausible alternative.

The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography

Objective

To update quality standards for CT colonography based on consensus among opinion leaders within the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR).

Material and methods

A multinational European panel of nine members of the ESGAR CT colonography Working Group (representing six EU countries) used a modified Delphi process to rate their level of agreement on a variety of statements pertaining to the acquisition, interpretation and implementation of CT colonography. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, each at 2 months interval.

Results

The panel elaborated 86 statements.

In the final round the panelists achieved complete consensus in 71 of 86 statements (82 %). Categories including the highest proportion of statements with excellent Cronbach's internal reliability were colon distension, scan parameters, use of intravenous contrast agents, general guidelines on patient preparation, role of CAD and lesion measurement.

Lower internal reliability was achieved for the use of a rectal tube, spasmolytics, decubitus positioning and number of CT data acquisitions, faecal tagging, 2D vs. 3D reading, and reporting.

Conclusion

The recommendations of the consensus should be useful for both the radiologist who is starting a CTC service and for those who have already implemented the technique but whose practice may need updating.

Key Points

• Computed tomographic colonography is the optimal radiological method of assessing the colon

• This article reviews ESGAR quality standards for CT colonography

• This article is aimed to provide CT-colonography guidelines for practising radiologists

• The recommendations should help radiologists who are starting/updating their CTC services

AUTOMATIC DETECTION OF COLORECTAL POLYPS IN STATIC IMAGES

Colorectal cancer continues to be one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. Scanning using colorectal endoscopy is a useful and common method in clinical examinations. However, the scanning and polyps detections are performed by physicians. Failures to detect polyps might be caused due to lack of experience or knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to discover a scheme able to distinguish polyps from normal tissue in static images off-line.Texture features are studied for the discrimination between polyps and normal tissue. Two useful and simple features are proposed. The student's t-test is applied in selecting useful features to reduce the computation time. The support vector machine is used as a classifier to identify the position of polyps. A study on the numbers in the training patterns is done in order to select an optimal ratio between the polyps and non-polyps sub-images. Seventy-four colonoscopic images are collected to test the system. Half are used as training images and half for testing. The experimental result shows the system can identify all polyps if the colonoscopic images contain a single polyp. The sensitivity is 86.2% and the false-positive rate is 1.26 marks per image.

[CT colonography: what radiologists need to know]

In 2008, CT colonography was approved by the American Cancer Society as a technique for screening for colorectal cancer. This approval should be considered an important step in the recognition of the technique, which although still relatively new is already changing some diagnostic algorithms. This update about CT colonography reports the quality parameters necessary for a CT colonographic study to be diagnostic and reviews the technical innovations and colonic preparation for the study. We provide a brief review of the signs and close with a discussion of the current indications for and controversies about the technique.

Comparison of accuracy and time-efficiency of CT colonography between conventional and panoramic 3D interpretation methods: an anthropomorphic phantom study

PURPOSE

To retrospectively compare the conventional three-dimensional (3D) interpretation method with the panoramic 3D method with regard to accuracy and time-efficiency in the detection of colonic polyps, using pig colonic phantoms as the standard of reference.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One-hundred and sixty-two polyps were created in 18 pig colonic phantoms. CT colonography was performed with a 64-row detector CT scanner. Two-week interval reviews for the CTC image dataset with both the conventional and the panoramic 3D interpretation method were independently performed by three radiologists. The sensitivities of both methods were compared with the McNemar test. The mean interpretation time for each interpretation method was also assessed and compared with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

Compared with the conventional 3D method (0.96 for reader 1, 0.89 for reader 2, and 0.97 for reader 3), the panoramic method revealed comparable sensitivities (0.91 for reader 1, 0.86 for reader 2, and 0.93 for reader 3) (p>0.05). Interpretation time was significantly shorter with the panoramic method (115.1±32.7 s for reader 1, 229.7±72.2 s for reader 2, and 282.6±113.7 s for reader 3) than with the conventional method (218.9±59.9 s for reader 1, 379.4±117.0 s for reader 2, and 458.7±149.4 s for reader 3) for all readers (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the conventional 3D interpretation method, the panoramic 3D interpretation method shows improved time-efficiency and comparable sensitivity in the detection of colonic polyps.

Effect of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a multireader, multicase trial

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of using computer-aided detection (CAD) in second-read mode on readers' accuracy in interpreting computed tomographic (CT) colonographic images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The contributing institutions performed the examinations under approval of their local institutional review board, with waiver of informed consent, for this HIPAA-compliant study. A cohort of 100 colonoscopy-proved cases was used: In 52 patients with findings positive for polyps, 74 polyps of 6 mm or larger were observed in 65 colonic segments; in 48 patients with findings negative for polyps, no polyps were found. Nineteen blinded readers interpreted each case at two different times, with and without the assistance of a commercial CAD system. The effect of CAD was assessed in segment-level and patient-level receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses.

RESULTS

Thirteen (68%) of 19 readers demonstrated higher accuracy with CAD, as measured with the segment-level area under the ROC curve (AUC). The readers' average segment-level AUC with CAD (0.758) was significantly greater (P = .015) than the average AUC in the unassisted read (0.737). Readers' per-segment, per-patient, and per-polyp sensitivity for all polyps of 6 mm or larger was higher (P < .011, .007, .005, respectively) for readings with CAD compared with unassisted readings (0.517 versus 0.465, 0.521 versus 0.466, and 0.477 versus 0.422, respectively). Sensitivity for patients with at least one large polyp of 10 mm or larger was also higher (P < .047) with CAD than without (0.777 versus 0.743). Average reader sensitivity also improved with CAD by more than 0.08 for small adenomas. Use of CAD reduced specificity of readers by 0.025 (P = .05).

CONCLUSION

Use of CAD resulted in a significant improvement in overall reader performance. CAD improves reader sensitivity when measured per segment, per patient, and per polyp for small polyps and adenomas and also reduces specificity by a small amount.

Influence of body habitus and use of oral contrast on reader confidence in patients with suspected acute appendicitis using 64 MDCT

The purpose of this study is to evaluate how body habitus affects reader confidence in diagnosing acute appendicitis and appendiceal visualization using 64 MDCT technology with and without oral contrast. We conducted a HIPAA compliant, IRB approved study of adult patients presenting to the Emergency Department with nontraumatic abdominal pain. Subjects were randomized to two groups: 64 MDCT scans performed with oral and intravenous contrast or scans performed solely with intravenous contrast. Three radiologists established their confidence about the presence of appendicitis as well as recording whether the appendix was visualized. Reader confidence in diagnosing acute appendicitis was compared between the two groups for the three readers. The impact of patient BMI and estimated intra-abdominal fat on reader confidence in diagnosing appendicitis was determined. Finally, a comparison of the effect of BMI and intra-abdominal fat on appendiceal visualization between the two groups was carried out. Three hundred three patients were enrolled in this study. There was a statistically significant difference in confidence based on BMI for reader 2, group 1 in diagnosing appendicitis. No further statistically significant differences in reader confidence for diagnosing appendicitis based on BMI or intra-abdominal fat were identified. There was no influence of BMI or intra-abdominal fat on appendiceal visualization. Increasing BMI was seen to improve reader confidence for one of three readers in patients that received both oral and intravenous contrast. No further effects of BMI or intra-abdominal fat on confidence in diagnosing or excluding appendicitis were seen. Neither BMI nor intra-abdominal fat were seen to influence appendiceal visualization.

Improving the accuracy of CTC interpretation: computer-aided detection

Computer-aided polyp detection aims to improve the accuracy of the colonography interpretation. The computer searches the colonic wall to look for polyplike protrusions and presents a list of suspicious areas to a physician for further analysis. Computer-aided polyp detection has developed rapidly in the past decade in the laboratory setting and has sensitivities comparable with those of experts. Computer-aided polyp detection tends to help inexperienced readers more than experienced ones and may also lead to small reductions in specificity. In its currently proposed use as an adjunct to standard image interpretation, computer-aided polyp detection serves as a spellchecker rather than an efficiency enhancer.

Virtual dissection CT colonography: evaluation of learning curves and reading times with and without computer-aided detection

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate the learning curves and reading times of inexperienced readers who used the virtual dissection reading method for retrospective computed tomographic (CT) colonography data sets, with and without concurrent computer-aided detection (CAD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An Institutional Review Board approved this study; informed consent was waived. Four radiologists without experience in CT colonography evaluated 100 optical colonoscopy-proved data sets of 100 patients (49 men, 51 women; mean age, 59 years +/- 13 [standard deviation]; range, 21-85 years) by using the virtual dissection reading method. Two readers used concurrent CAD. Data sets were read during five consecutive 1-day sessions (20 data sets per session). Polyp detection and false-positive rates, receiver operating characteristics (ROCs), and reading times were calculated for individual, CAD group, and non-CAD group readings. Diagnostic values were compared by calculating the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the relative risk. Areas under ROC curves (AUCs) (Hanley and McNeil for paired analysis and z statistics for unpaired analysis) and reading times (Wilcoxon signed rank test) were compared across the sessions, within each session and for the whole study.

RESULTS

The range of detection rates was 79 of 111 (.71 [95% CI: .61, .79]) to 91 of 111 (.82 [95% CI: .73, .88]). The range of false-positive rates was 17 of 111 (.15 [95% CI: .09, .23]) to 22 of 111 (.20 [95% CI: .12, .28]). All readers' AUCs rose from session 1 to session 4; this rise was significant (P < .05) for the non-CAD group. Only during session 1 was the CAD group AUC (.83) higher than the non-CAD group AUC (.54) (P < .05). Comparison of CAD and non-CAD reading times showed no significant difference for the whole study or during each session (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The virtual dissection reading technique allows short learning curves, which may be improved by the concurrent use of CAD, without significant effect on average reading time.

CT colonography and computer-aided detection: effect of false-positive results on reader specificity and reading efficiency in a low-prevalence screening population

PURPOSE

To retrospectively evaluate the effect of increasing numbers of computer-aided detection (CAD)-generated false-positive (FP) marks on reader specificity and reporting times by using computed tomographic (CT) colonography in a low-prevalence screening population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethics committee approval and informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. Four readers each read 48 data sets (26 men, 22 women; mean age, 57 years) from a screening population (three containing polyps) without CAD application, followed by review of the CAD output and recorded findings and diagnostic confidence. The 45 data sets that were designated as normal were chosen such that 22 generated 15 or fewer FP CAD marks and 23 generated more than 15 FP CAD marks. Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated with and without CAD. The relationships between the number of CAD FP marks and reader confidence, reporting times, and correct data set classification were analyzed by using linear and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Across all readers, CAD resulted in four additional FP detections. Overall reader sensitivity and specificity (6-mm polyp threshold) before and after CAD application were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43, 0.95) versus 0.83 (95% CI: 0.52, 0.98) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.98) versus 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.96), respectively. The area under the ROC curve increased from 0.57 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.80) to 0.61 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.80). There was no correlation between an increasing number of CAD FP marks and reader confidence (P = .71) or correct study classification (P = .23), but there was a positive correlation with CAD-assisted reading times (0.06 [95% CI: 0.02, 0.10], P = .002).

CONCLUSION

Increasing numbers of CAD FP marks did not adversely influence correct reader study classification or diagnostic confidence, although reporting times did increase.

CT colonography with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) as second reader on radiologists' diagnostic performance in interpreting computed tomographic (CT) colonographic examinations by using a primary two-dimensional (2D) approach, with segmental, unblinded optical colonoscopy as the reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This HIPAA-compliant study was IRB-approved with written informed consent. Four board-certified radiologists analyzed 60 CT examinations with a commercially available review system. Two-dimensional transverse views were used for initial polyp detection, while three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal and 2D multiplanar views were available for problem solving. After initial review without CAD, the reader was shown CAD-identified polyp candidates. The readers were then allowed to add to or modify their original diagnoses. Polyp location, CT Colonography Reporting and Data System categorization, and reader confidence as to the likelihood of a candidate being a polyp were recorded before and after CAD reading. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were estimated for CT examinations with and without CAD readings by using multireader multicase analysis.

RESULTS

Use of CAD led to nonsignificant average reader AUC increases of 0.03, 0.03, and 0.04 for patients with adenomatous polyps 6 mm or larger, 6-9 mm, and 10 mm or larger, respectively (P > or = .25); likewise, CAD increased average reader sensitivity by 0.15, 0.16, and 0.14 for those respective groups, with a corresponding decrease in specificity of 0.14. These changes achieved significance for the 6 mm or larger group (P < .01), 6-9 mm group (P < .02), and for specificity (P < .01), but not for the 10 mm or larger group (P > .16). The average reading time was 5.1 minutes +/- 3.4 (standard deviation) without CAD. CAD added an average of 3.1 minutes +/- 4.3 (62%) to each reading (supine and prone positions combined); average total reading time, 8.2 minutes +/- 5.8.

CONCLUSION

Use of CAD led to a significant increase in sensitivity for detecting polyps in the 6 mm or larger and 6-9 mm groups at the expense of a similar significant reduction in specificity.

Computer-aided detection for CT colonography: incremental benefit of observer training

The purpose of this study was to investigate the incremental effect of focused training on observer performance when using computer-assisted detection (CAD) software to interpret CT colonography (CTC). Six radiologists who were relatively inexperienced with CTC interpretation underwent 1 day of focused training before reading 20 patient datasets with the assistance of CAD software (ColonCAR 1.3, Medicsight PLC). Sensitivity, specificity and interpretation times were determined and compared with previous performance when reading the same datasets but without the benefit of focused training, using the binomial exact test and Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Per-polyp sensitivity improved after training by 18% overall (95% confidence interval (CI): 14-24%, p<0.001) and was greatest for polyps of 6-9 mm (26%, 95% CI: 18-34%, p<0.001). Absolute sensitivity was 23% (9-36%), 51% (33-71%) and 74% (44-100%) for polyps of <or=5 mm, 6-9 mm and >or=10 mm, respectively. Specificity fell significantly after focused training (median of 5.5 false positives per 20 datasets (interquartile range (IQR): 4-6) post-training vs median of 2.5 (IQR: 1-5) pre-training, p = 0.03). Interpretation time also increased significantly after training (from a median of 9.3 min (IQR: 9.3-14.5 min) to a median of 17.1 min (IQR: 15.4-19.4 min), p = 0.03). In conclusion, one day of training increases observer polyp sensitivity when using CAD for CTC at the expense of increased reporting time and reduction in specificity.

Fundamental elements for successful performance of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy)

There are many factors affecting the successful performance of CT colonography (CTC). Adequate colonic cleansing and distention, the optimal CT technique and interpretation with using the newest CTC software by a trained reader will help ensure high accuracy for lesion detection. Fecal and fluid tagging may improve the diagnostic accuracy and allow for reduced bowel preparation. Automated carbon dioxide insufflation is more efficient and may be safer for colonic distention as compared to manual room air insufflation. CT scanning should use thin collimation of < or =3 mm with a reconstruction interval of < or =1.5 mm and a low radiation dose. There is not any one correct method for the interpretation of CTC; therefore, readers should be well-versed with both the primary 3D and 2D reviews. Polyps detected at CTC should be measured accurately and reported following the "polyp size-based" patient management system. The time-intensive nature of CTC and the limited resources for training radiologists appear to be the major barriers for implementing CTC in Korea.

Two- versus Three-dimensional Colon Evaluation with Recently Developed Virtual Dissection Software for CT Colonography

This retrospective study was institutional review board approved; the requirement for informed patient consent was waived. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare a two-dimensional (2D) data interpretation technique with a three-dimensional (3D) colon dissection technique in terms of interpretation time and sensitivity for colonic polyp detection, with colonoscopy as the reference standard. Ninety-six patients (56 men, 40 women; mean age, 54.8 years) underwent colonoscopy and multidetector computed tomographic (CT) colonography on the same day. Two radiologists independently analyzed the data on a per-polyp and per-patient basis. The sensitivity of both approaches was compared by using the McNemar test. The time required to interpret CT colonographic data with each technique was also assessed. Compared with the conventional 2D colonic polyp detection method, primary 3D interpretation with use of virtual dissection software for CT colonography revealed comparable per-polyp (77% and 69% for two readers) and per-patient (77% and 73% for two readers) sensitivities and comparable per-patient specificity (99% and 89% for two readers) for the detection of polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger and involved a shorter interpretation time.

CAD in CT colonography without and with oral contrast agents: progress and challenges

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC), also known as virtual colonoscopy, is an emerging alternative technique for screening of colon cancers. CTC uses CT to provide a series of cross-sectional images of the colon for detection of polyps and masses. Fecal tagging is a means of labeling of residual feces by an oral contrast agent for improving the accuracy in the detection of polyps. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for CTC automatically determines the locations of suspicious polyps and masses in CTC and presents them to radiologists, typically as a second opinion. Despite its relatively short history, CAD has become one of the mainstream techniques that could make CTC prime time for screening of colorectal cancer. Rapid technical developments have advanced CAD substantially during the last several years, and a fundamental scheme for the detection of polyps has been established, in which sophisticated 3D image processing, analysis, and display techniques play a pivotal role. The latest CAD systems indicate a clinically acceptable high sensitivity and a low false-positive rate, and observer studies have demonstrated the benefits of these systems in improving radiologists' detection performance. Some technical and clinical challenges, however, remain unresolved before CAD can become a truly useful tool for clinical practice. Also, new challenges are facing CAD as the methods for bowel preparation and image acquisition, such as tagging of fecal residue with oral contrast agents, and interpretation of CTC images evolve. This article reviews the current status and future challenges in CAD for CTC without and with fecal tagging.

Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography

Our purpose was to assess the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) on lesion detection as a second reader in computed tomographic colonography, and to compare the influence of CAD on the performance of readers with different levels of expertise. Fifty-two CT colonography patient data-sets (37 patients: 55 endoscopically confirmed polyps > or =0.5 cm, seven cancers; 15 patients: no abnormalities) were retrospectively reviewed by four radiologists (two expert, two nonexpert). After primary data evaluation, a second reading augmented with findings of CAD (polyp-enhanced view, Siemens) was performed. Sensitivities and reading time were calculated for each reader without CAD and supported by CAD findings. The sensitivity of expert readers was 91% each, and of nonexpert readers, 76% and 75%, respectively, for polyp detection. CAD increased the sensitivity of expert readers to 96% (P = 0.25) and 93% (P = 1), and that of nonexpert readers to 91% (P = 0.008) and 95% (P = 0.001), respectively. All four readers diagnosed 100% of cancers, but CAD alone only 43%. CAD increased reading time by 2.1 min (mean). CAD as a second reader significantly improves sensitivity for polyp detection in a high disease prevalence population for nonexpert readers. CAD causes a modest increase in reading time. CAD is of limited value in the detection of cancer.

Pitfalls in Multi–Detector Row CT Colonography: A Systematic Approach

Thin-section multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a powerful tool for the detection and classification of colonic lesions. However, each step in the process of a CT colonographic examination carries the potential for misdiagnosis. Suboptimal patient preparation, CT scanning protocol deficiencies, and perception and interpretation errors can lead to false-positive and false-negative findings, adversely affecting the diagnostic performance of CT colonography. These problems and pitfalls can be overcome with a variety of useful techniques and observations. A relatively clean, dry, and well-distended colon can be achieved with careful patient preparation, thereby avoiding the problem of residual stool and fluid. Knowledge of the morphologic and attenuation characteristics of common colonic lesions and artifacts can help identify bulbous haustral folds, impacted diverticula, an inverted appendiceal stump, or mobile polyps, any of which may pose problems for the radiologist. A combined two-dimensional and three-dimensional imaging approach is recommended for each colonic finding. A thorough knowledge of the various pitfalls and pseudolesions that may be encountered at CT colonography, along with use of dedicated problem-solving techniques, will help the radiologist differentiate between definite colonic lesions and pseudolesions.

CT colonography: Results and limitations

Meta-analysis of data from studies of CT colonography suggests that it has excellent per-patient average sensitivity and average specificity for detection of adenomatous polyps and cancer. However, while its potential as a screening test is undoubted, there are several current limitations that will need to be overcome before it can be considered seriously by health policy makers. These revolve around issues of generalisability, which is inhibited most by a lack of trained observers and access to CT scanners, and a paucity of data relating to cost-effectiveness. Whether offering CT colonography as an alternative to competing strategies will genuinely enhance compliance also needs further and more detailed attention.

Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In isolation, computer-aided detection (CAD) for computed tomographic (CT) colonography is as effective as optical colonoscopy for detection of significant adenomas. However, the unavoidable interaction between CAD and the reader has not been addressed.

METHODS

Ten readers trained in CT but without special expertise in colonography interpreted CT colonography images of 107 patients (60 with 142 polyps), first without CAD and then with CAD after temporal separation of 2 months. Per-patient and per-polyp detection were determined by comparing responses with known patient status.

RESULTS

With CAD, 41 (68%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-80%) of the 60 patients with polyps were identified more frequently by readers. Per-patient sensitivity increased significantly in 70% of readers, while specificity dropped significantly in only one. Polyp detection increased significantly with CAD; on average, 12 more polyps were detected by each reader (9.1%, 95% CI, 5.2%-12.8%). Small- (< or =5 mm) and medium-sized (6-9 mm) polyps were significantly more likely to be detected when prompted correctly by CAD. However, overall performance was relatively poor; even with CAD, on average readers detected only 10 polyps (51.0%) > or =10 mm and 24 (38.2%) > or =6 mm. Interpretation time was shortened significantly with CAD: by 1.9 minutes (95% CI, 1.4-2.4 minutes) for patients with polyps and by 2.9 minutes (95% CI, 2.5-3.3 minutes) for patients without. Overall, 9 readers (90%) benefited significantly from CAD, either by increased sensitivity and/or by reduced interpretation time.

CONCLUSIONS

CAD for CT colonography significantly increases per-patient and per-polyp detection and significantly reduces interpretation times but cannot substitute for adequate training.

A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography

The aim of our study was to compare primary three-dimensional (3D) and primary two-dimensional (2D) review methods for CT colonography with regard to polyp detection and perceptive errors. CT colonography studies of 77 patients were read twice by three reviewers, first with a primary 3D method and then with a primary 2D method. Mean numbers of true and false positives, patient sensitivity and specificity and perceptive errors were calculated with colonoscopy as a reference standard. A perceptive error was made if a polyp was not detected by all reviewers. Mean sensitivity for large (> or = 10 mm) polyps for primary 3D and 2D review was 81% (14.7/18) and 70%(12.7/18), respectively (p-values > or = 0.25). Mean numbers of large false positives for primary 3D and 2D were 8.3 and 5.3, respectively. With primary 3D and 2D review 1 and 6 perceptive errors, respectively, were made in 18 large polyps (p = 0.06). For medium-sized (6-9 mm) polyps these values were for primary 3D and 2D, respectively: mean sensitivity: 67%(11.3/17) and 61%(10.3/17; p-values > or = 0.45), number of false positives: 33.3 and 15.6, and perceptive errors : 4 and 6 (p = 0.53). No significant differences were found in the detection of large and medium-sized polyps between primary 3D and 2D review.

Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training

This study investigated the variability in baseline computed tomography colonography (CTC) performance using untrained readers by documenting sources of error to guide future training requirements. Twenty CTC endoscopically validated data sets containing 32 polyps were consensus read by three unblinded radiologists experienced in CTC, creating a reference standard. Six readers without prior CTC training [four residents and two board-certified subspecialty gastrointestinal (GI) radiologists] read the 20 cases. Readers drew a region of interest (ROI) around every area they considered a potential colonic lesion, even if subsequently dismissed, before creating a final report. Using this final report, reader ROIs were classified as true positive detections, true negatives correctly dismissed, true detections incorrectly dismissed (i.e., classification error), or perceptual errors. Detection of polyps 1-5 mm, 6-9 mm, and > or =10 mm ranged from 7.1% to 28.6%, 16.7% to 41.7%, and 16.7% to 83.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference between polyp detection or false positives for the GI radiologists compared with residents (p=0.67, p=0.4 respectively). Most missed polyps were due to failure of detection rather than characterization (range 82-95%). Untrained reader performance is variable but generally poor. Most missed polyps are due perceptual error rather than characterization, suggesting basic training should focus heavily on lesion detection.