AJR Click to access the Dec 2009 issue
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bethea, E.
Right arrow Articles by Dachman, A. H.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bethea, E.
Right arrow Articles by Dachman, A. H.
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?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.09.2618
AJR 2009; 193:1561-1567
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Comparison of Polyp Size and Volume at CT Colonography: Implications for Follow-Up CT Colonography

Emily Bethea1, Ogonna K. Nwawka2 and Abraham H. Dachman1

1 Department of Radiology, Pritzker School of Medicine, The University of Chicago, MC 2026, 5841 S Maryland Ave., Chicago, IL, 60637.
2 Present address: Department of Radiology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of polyp measurements at CT colonography and the factors that affect the measurements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fifty colonoscopically proven cases of polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger were analyzed by two observers who measured each polyp in supine and prone views. Manual measurements of 2D volume by summation of areas, 2D maximum diameter, and 3D maximum diameter and automated measurements of 3D maximum diameter and volume were recorded for each observer and were repeated for one of the observers. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was calculated. Analysis was performed to determine the measurement parameter that correlated most with summation-of-areas volume. Supine and prone measurements as a surrogate for tracking change in polyp size over time were analyzed to determine the measurement parameter with the least variation.

RESULTS. Maximum diameter measured manually on 3D images had the highest correlation with summation-of-areas volume. Manual summation-of-areas volume was found to have the least variation between supine and prone measurements.

CONCLUSION. Linear polyp measurement in the 3D endoluminal view appears to be the most reliable parameter for use in the decision to excise a polyp according to current guidelines. In our study, manual calculation of volume with summation of areas was found to be the most reliable measurement parameter for observing polyp growth over serial examinations. High reliability of polyp measurements is essential for adequate assessment of change in polyp size over serial examinations because many patients with intermediate-size polyps are expected to choose surveillance.

Keywords: colon • CT • CT colonography • virtual colonoscopy


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 © 2009 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.