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.

[1]  J. Burdick,et al.  Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. , 2004, JAMA.

[2]  Sandra Sudarsky,et al.  Panoramic Views for Virtual Endoscopy , 2005, MICCAI.

[3]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Flat colorectal lesions in asymptomatic adults: implications for screening with CT virtual colonoscopy. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  R. Jeffrey,et al.  Display modes for CT colonography. Part II. Blinded comparison of axial CT and virtual endoscopic and panoramic endoscopic volume-rendered studies. , 1999, Radiology.

[5]  Steve Halligan,et al.  Uni- and bidirectional wide angle CT colonography: effect on missed areas, surface visualization, viewing time and polyp conspicuity , 2008, European Radiology.

[6]  Byung Ihn Choi,et al.  An anthropomorphic phantom study of computer-aided detection performance for polyp detection on CT colonography: a comparison of commercially and academically available systems. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  Jae Young Lee,et al.  Effects of spatial resolution and tube current on computer-aided detection of polyps on CT colonographic images: phantom study. , 2008, Radiology.

[8]  M. Hellström,et al.  Primary three-dimensional analysis with perspective-filet view versus primary two-dimensional analysis: Evaluation of lesion detection by inexperienced readers at computed tomographic colonography in symptomatic patients , 2009, Acta radiologica.

[9]  Jin Ho Kim,et al.  Flat polyps of the colon: detection with 16-MDCT colonography--preliminary results. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Jamshid Dehmeshki,et al.  Polyp detection with CT colonography: primary 3D endoluminal analysis versus primary 2D transverse analysis with computer-assisted reader software. , 2006, Radiology.

[11]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Polyp Detection at 3-Dimensional Endoluminal Computed Tomography Colonography: Sensitivity of One-Way Fly-Through at 120 Degrees Field-of-View Angle , 2009, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[12]  Jae Young Lee,et al.  Two- versus three-dimensional colon evaluation with recently developed virtual dissection software for CT colonography. , 2007, Radiology.

[13]  Wolfgang Schima,et al.  CT colonography: techniques, indications, findings. , 2007, European journal of radiology.

[14]  M. Prokop,et al.  Comparison of axial, coronal, and primary 3D review in MDCT colonography for the detection of small polyps: a phantom study. , 2009, European journal of radiology.

[15]  Jorge A Soto,et al.  Consensus on current clinical practice of virtual colonoscopy. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  P. Pickhardt,et al.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  J K Han,et al.  CT colonography in a Korean population with a high residue diet: comparison between wet and dry preparations. , 2006, Clinical radiology.

[19]  Beom Jin Park,et al.  Panoramic endoluminal display with minimal image distortion using circumferential radial ray-casting for primary three-dimensional interpretation of CT colonography , 2009, European Radiology.

[20]  E. Paulson,et al.  Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison , 2005, The Lancet.