AJR ARRS Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fletcher, J. G.
Right arrow Articles by Harmsen, W. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fletcher, J. G.
Right arrow Articles by Harmsen, W. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.06.1169
AJR 2007; 188:945-952
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Original Research

Automated Polyp Measurement with CT Colonography: Preliminary Observations in a Phantom Colon Model

Joel G. Fletcher1, Fargol Booya1, Zachary Melton1, Kristina Johnson1, Lutz Guendel2, Bernhard Schmidt2, Cynthia H. McCollough1, Brett Young1, Jeff L. Fidler1 and William S. Harmsen1

1 Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Mayo E-2, Rochester, MN 55905.
2 Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, PA.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and precision of polyp measurements obtained with an automated tool in a colon phantom containing polyps of multiple sizes, morphologic types, and locations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. A colon phantom was scanned at 12, 25, 50, and 100 mA with standard CT colonographic acquisition parameters. Four reviewers using manual 2D methods and an automated polyp measurement tool measured 24 polyps of varying sizes and morphologic types, some at a haustral fold tip and some not at a fold tip. The accuracy (difference from true value) of manual and automated methods was compared across polyp sizes, morphologic types, locations, and doses. Precision (closeness of different measures) was compared for intraobserver and interobserver measurements.

RESULTS. The accuracy of automated polyp measurement was dependent on morphologic type (p ≤ 0.02), size (for three of four reviewers, p ≤ 0.05), and location of polyps with respect to haustral folds (two of four reviewers, p ≤ 0.01). For two of four reviewers, automated measures were less accurate for 5-mm polyps, flat polyps, and polyps at the tips of folds (p ≤ 0.04). Intraobserver precision was high, two automated measurements being within 0.1 mm of each other 82-93% of the time. Interobserver precision values for automated measures were more similar 85% of the time (82/96; p <0.001).

CONCLUSION. Accuracy of automated polyp measurements depends on polyp size, morphologic type, and location. When using an automated tool, radiologists should visually inspect automated polyp measurements, particularly for small and flat polyps and those located on folds, because manual measurements may be more accurate in this setting. Automated polyp measurements are more precise than manual measurements.

Keywords: colon cancer • CT colonography • polyps


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




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.