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

This Article Abstract 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 Fletcher, J. G. Articles by Harmsen, W. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fletcher, J. G. Articles by Harmsen, W. S. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

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

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

View larger version (151K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1A —Colon phantom. Images show use of automated polyp measurement tool. Three-dimensional endoluminal view obtained with 50-mA data set shows 7-mm sessile polyp not on haustral fold. After activation of automated polyp measurement tool, single mouse click was made at tip of arrow. 3a = polyp number assigned as part of study.

View larger version (49K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1B —Colon phantom. Images show use of automated polyp measurement tool. Two-dimensional multiplanar reformation (MPR) corresponding to polyp in A shows how automated polyp measurement tool circumscribes polyp in box. Reported measurement is 0.63 cm. 3a = polyp number assigned as part of study.

View larger version (53K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1C —Colon phantom. Images show use of automated polyp measurement tool. Oblique 2D MPR image corresponding to polyp in A shows circumscribed polyp in plane perpendicular to B.

View larger version (155K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1D —Colon phantom. Images show use of automated polyp measurement tool. Three-dimensional endoluminal view of polyp in A shows polyp boundaries circumscribed with automated polyp measurement tool (box). 3a = polyp number assigned as part of study.

View larger version (149K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1E —Colon phantom. Images show use of automated polyp measurement tool. Three-dimensional endoluminal view of polyp in A with orientation changed. Automated polyp measurement tool is activated by clicking on another point (arrow) on polyp surface. 3a = polyp number assigned as part of study.

View larger version (52K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1F —Colon phantom. Images show use of automated polyp measurement tool. Two-dimensional MPR image corresponding to polyp measurement in E. Automated polyp measurement device shows diameter of 0.63 cm. 3a = polyp number assigned as part of study.

View larger version (170K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1G —Colon phantom. Images show use of automated polyp measurement tool. Three-dimensional endoluminal view of polyp in A-F obtained from 12-mA data set. Automated polyp measurement tool circumscribes borders of polyp (box). 2a = polyp number assigned as part of study.

View larger version (59K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1H —Colon phantom. Images show use of automated polyp measurement tool. Two-dimensional MPR image obtained from 12-mA data set corresponding to G shows polyp diameter is 0.65 cm.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 2 —Chart shows experimental design. Each reviewer performed two automated measurements and one manual measurement for each polyp in each data set. Each data set contained 24 polyps of three morphologic types (pedunculated, sessile, or flat), four sizes (5, 7, 9, or 12 mm), and two locations (tip of fold or not). Brackets indicate how measurement data were pooled to address specific questions.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 3A —Graphs show accuracy of automated polyp measurement tool. Mean absolute error represents pooling of data across all four reviewers and all CT data sets. When multiple polyp characteristics associated with measurement inaccuracy are combined (e.g., small size, flat morphologic type, location on tip of haustral fold), measurement errors can be large. Graph shows accuracy of measurement of polyps not on tip of fold.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 3B —Graphs show accuracy of automated polyp measurement tool. Mean absolute error represents pooling of data across all four reviewers and all CT data sets. When multiple polyp characteristics associated with measurement inaccuracy are combined (e.g., small size, flat morphologic type, location on tip of haustral fold), measurement errors can be large. Graph shows accuracy of measurement of polyps on tip of fold.

View larger version (67K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 4A —Colon phantom with 5-mm flat polyp (3a) on tip of fold. Example of inaccurate measurement with automated tool. Two-dimensional multiplanar reformation (MPR) image shows 5-mm flat polyp (arrow) obtained from 100-mA CT data set. Large arrow shows which polyp was measured.

View larger version (92K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 4B —Colon phantom with 5-mm flat polyp (3a) on tip of fold. Example of inaccurate measurement with automated tool. Oblique 2D MPR image bisecting polyp (arrow) shows largest cross-sectional diameter and manual measurement of 4.8 mm.

View larger version (158K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 4C —Colon phantom with 5-mm flat polyp (3a) on tip of fold. Example of inaccurate measurement with automated tool. Three-dimensional endoluminal view of polyp in B shows that automated polyp measurement tool has included underlying haustral fold in polyp, labeled 3a, boundary (box). 1a = another polyp.

View larger version (67K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 4D —Colon phantom with 5-mm flat polyp (3a) on tip of fold. Example of inaccurate measurement with automated tool. Two-dimensional MPR image shows polyp and underlying haustral fold, both of which were circumscribed by automated polyp measurement tool, producing overestimate of polyp size at 7.3 mm.

View larger version (10K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 5 —Graph shows precision of manual measurements versus automated measurements for two observers measuring 96 polyps. Precision is reported as difference between either two manual measurements or two automated measurements. Points above diagonal line represent polyps in which two automated measurements were closer. Points below diagonal line represent polyps in which two manual measurements were closer. For two observers, difference between automated measurements was smaller than difference between manual measurements for 82/96 (85%) of polyps (p < 0.01).

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati