HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Young, B. M. Articles by Mandrekar, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Young, B. M. Articles by Mandrekar, J. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Polyp Measurement with CT Colonography: Multiple-Reader, Multiple-Workstation Comparison

¹ Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905.
² Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Mayo East 2-B, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905.
³ Present address: St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN.
⁴ Present address: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
⁵ Division of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN 55905.

OBJECTIVE. The risk of invasive colorectal cancer in colorectal polyps correlates with lesion size. Our purpose was to define the most accurate methods for measuring polyp size at CT colonography (CTC) using three models of workstations and multiple observers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Six reviewers measured 24 unique polyps of known size (5, 7, 10, and 12 mm), shape (sessile, flat, and pedunculated), and location (straight or curved bowel segment) using CTC data sets obtained at two doses (5 mAs and 65 mAs) and a previously described colonic phantom model. Reviewers measured the largest diameter of polyps on three proprietary workstations. Each polyp was measured with lung and soft-tissue windows on axial, 2D multiplanar reconstruction (MPR), and 3D images.

RESULTS. There were significant differences among measurements obtained at various settings within each workstation (p < 0.0001). Measurements on 2D images were more accurate with lung window than with soft-tissue window settings (p < 0.0001). For the 65-mAs data set, the most accurate measurements were obtained in analysis of axial images with lung window, 2D MPR images with lung window, and 3D tissue cube images for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea workstations, respectively, without significant differences in accuracy among techniques (0.11 < p < 0.59). The mean absolute error values for these optimal settings were 0.48 mm, 0.61 mm, and 0.76 mm, respectively, for the three workstations. Within the ultralow-dose 5-mAs data set the best methods for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea were axial with lung window, 2D MPR with lung window, and 2D MPR with lung window, respectively. Use of nearly all measurement methods, except for the Vitrea 3D tissue cube and the Wizard 2D MPR with lung window, resulted in undermeasurement of the true size of the polyps.

CONCLUSION. Use of CTC computer workstations facilitates accurate polyp measurement. For routine CTC examinations, polyps should be measured with lung window settings on 2D axial or MPR images (Wizard and Advantage) or 3D images (Vitrea). When these optimal methods are used, these three commercial workstations do not differ significantly in acquisition of accurate polyp measurements at routine dose settings.

Keywords: cancer • colon • CT colonography

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. P. Whitlock, J. S. Lin, E. Liles, T. L. Beil, and R. Fu Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Targeted, Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, November 4, 2008; 149(9): 638 - 658. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Siddiki, J. G. Fletcher, B. McFarland, N. Dajani, N. Orme, B. Koenig, M. Strobel, and S. M. Wolf Incidental Findings in CT Colonography: Literature Review and Survey of Current Research Practice. J. Law Med. Ethics, June 1, 2008; 36(2): 320 - 331. [PDF]

				C. van Wijk, J. Florie, C. Y. Nio, E. Dekker, A. H. de Vries, H. W. Venema, L. J. van Vliet, J. Stoker, and F. M. Vos Protrusion Method for Automated Estimation of Polyp Size on CT Colonography Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1279 - 1285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Levin, D. A. Lieberman, B. McFarland, R. A. Smith, D. Brooks, K. S. Andrews, C. Dash, F. M. Giardiello, S. Glick, T. R. Levin, et al. Screening and Surveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Adenomatous Polyps, 2008: A Joint Guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology CA Cancer J Clin, May 1, 2008; 58(3): 130 - 160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Fletcher, F. Booya, Z. Melton, K. Johnson, L. Guendel, B. Schmidt, C. H. McCollough, B. Young, J. L. Fidler, and W. S. Harmsen Automated Polyp Measurement with CT Colonography: Preliminary Observations in a Phantom Colon Model Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2007; 188(4): 945 - 952. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Stanley The Challenge of Managing Prostate Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 1 - 1. [Full Text] [PDF]