Detection of colorectal polyps: comparison of multi-detector row CT and MR colonography in a colon phantom.

PURPOSE To compare multi-detector row (four- and 16-section) computed tomography (CT), including a low-dose protocol, with high-field-strength (1.5- and 3.0-T) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for reader detection of colorectal polyps in a colon phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS A colon phantom with simulated haustral folds and 10 polyps of varying size (2.0-8.0 mm) was imaged at four- and 16-section CT (section thicknesses of 1.25 and 0.75 mm, reconstruction increments of 0.8 and 0.7 mm, and 100 and 10 mAs, respectively, and 120 kV for both) and at 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging (three-dimensional gradient-recalled echo sequence, section thickness of 1.4 mm). Three-dimensional endoluminal images were assessed by 10 reviewers for each modality regarding polyp detection. Comparisons of sensitivities were performed by using logistic regression. RESULTS Overall, polyps were detected with a sensitivity of 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 80%, 94%) at four-section CT, 92% (95% CI: 87%, 97%) at 16-section CT, 56% (95% CI: 46%, 66%) at 1.5-T MR imaging, and 55% (95% CI: 45%, 65%) at 3.0-T MR imaging. The detection of polyps at least 4 mm in diameter was not influenced by the modality or radiation dose (sensitivity of 100%). CT performed in low-dose mode depicted all polyps with a diameter of at least 3 mm. Polyps smaller than 3 mm in diameter were detected with a sensitivity of 7.5% (1.5-T MR imaging), 22.5% (3.0-T MR imaging), and 20% (low-dose CT); detection rates were significantly greater (P < .001) with normal-dose CT (four section, 67.5%; 16 section, 82.5%). Increased spatial resolution (with CT) and higher field strength (with MR imaging) had no significant effect on polyp detection. CONCLUSION With both multi-detector row CT and MR imaging, readers detected polyps above the clinically relevant threshold diameter of 6 mm, with similar sensitivities.

[1]  Graham Wright,et al.  Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  M. Macari,et al.  Colorectal polyps and cancers in asymptomatic average-risk patients: evaluation with CT colonography. , 2004, Radiology.

[3]  S. Ruehm,et al.  MR colonography: How does air compare to water for colonic distention? , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

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

[5]  C. Catalano,et al.  Detection of colorectal lesions: lower-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy. , 2003, Radiology.

[6]  Karl Ludwig,et al.  CT colonography: Protocol optimization with multi-detector row CT--study in an anthropomorphic colon phantom. , 2003, Radiology.

[7]  Gerald Holtmann,et al.  MR colonography with barium-based fecal tagging: initial clinical experience. , 2002, Radiology.

[8]  W. Luboldt,et al.  MR colonography: status and perspective , 2002, Abdominal Imaging.

[9]  J. Debatin,et al.  Dark lumen MR-Colonography: initial experience , 2001, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[10]  C H McCollough,et al.  CT colonography: single- versus multi-detector row imaging. , 2001, Radiology.

[11]  R. Edelman,et al.  MR colonography using colonic distention with air as the contrast material: work in progress. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  J. Kruskal,et al.  Utility of intravenously administered contrast material at CT colonography. , 2000, Radiology.

[13]  M. D’Amato,et al.  Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. , 2000, Gastroenterology.

[14]  J F Debatin,et al.  Colonic masses: detection with MR colonography. , 2000, Radiology.

[15]  J. Brunberg,et al.  Adverse reactions to gadolinium contrast media: a review of 36 cases. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  J. Frisoli,et al.  Nephrotoxicity of high‐dose gadolinium compared with iodinated contrast , 1996, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[17]  J. Cuppen,et al.  RLSQ: T1, T2, and ρ calculations, combining ratios and least squares , 1987 .