Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: 3D endoluminal measurement with optimized surface-rendering threshold value and automated measurement.

PURPOSE To determine the optimal surface-rendering threshold value for three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal computed tomographic (CT) colonographic images for accurate manual polyp measurement, with direct measurement of simulated polyps as the reference standard, and to assess the agreement between manual 3D measurements and automated measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS Institutional review board approval was not required for the experimental study with pig colons obtained at an abattoir but was obtained for the use of patient data, with waiver of informed consent. Eighty-six simulated polyps (reference size, 3-15 mm) and 14 human polyps (approximate size, 5-20 mm) were included. Automated polyp measurements and manual measurements with endoluminal views that were surface rendered at threshold values of -800, -700, -600, and -500 HU were performed by one observer. Agreement between CT colonographic measurements and reference sizes and between manual and automated measurements were assessed by using the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS For simulated polyps, mean measurement difference between the observed size and reference size was 0.86 mm (95% limits of agreement: -0.52 mm, 2.24 mm), 0.55 mm (95% limits of agreement: -0.75 mm, 1.85 mm), 0.20 mm (95% limits of agreement: -1.11 mm, 1.50 mm), and -0.08 mm (95% limits of agreement: -1.43 mm, 1.27 mm) for -800, -700, -600, and -500 HU, respectively. Mean measurement difference was 0.09 mm (95% limits of agreement: -1.49 mm, 1.67 mm) for automated measurement. Manual polyp size at -500 HU (P = .277) and automated polyp size (P = .288) were not significantly different from reference size. For human polyps, 10 polyps, excluding four lesions that were large, lobulated, or located adjacent to an edge of the haustral fold, showed accurate automated demarcation of lesion boundaries. Automated measurements of the 10 polyps showed the closest agreement with manual measurements at -500 HU. CONCLUSION The optimal surface-rendering threshold value for accurate polyp measurement is approximately -500 HU. Automated measurements agree closely with manual measurements at the optimal threshold value for well-circumscribed smooth rounded polyps.

[1]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[2]  K R Hoffmann,et al.  Small simulated polyps in pig colon: sensitivity of CT virtual colography. , 1997, Radiology.

[3]  R. Markert,et al.  Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate? , 1996, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

[4]  K D Hopper,et al.  Mucosal detail at CT virtual reality: surface versus volume rendering. , 2000, Radiology.

[5]  M. Budoff,et al.  Effects of window and threshold levels on the accuracy of three-dimensional rendering techniques in coronary artery electron-beam CT angiography. , 2001, Academic Radiology.

[6]  Optimization of shaded surface display for CT angiography. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[7]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Three-dimensional endoluminal CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy): comparison of three commercially available systems. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays. , 2005, Radiology.

[9]  D. Ransohoff.  CON: Immediate Colonoscopy Is Not Necessary in Patients Who Have Polyps Smaller Than 1 cm on Computed Tomographic Colonography , 2005, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[10]  J. Yee,et al.  CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. , 2005, Radiology.

[11]  D. Rex.  PRO: Patients with Polyps Smaller Than 1 cm on Computed Tomographic Colonography Should Be Offered Colonoscopy and Polypectomy , 2005, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[12]  Jamshid Dehmeshki,et al.  Computed Tomography Colonography: Automated Diameter and Volume Measurement of Colonic Polyps Compared With a Manual Technique-In Vitro Study , 2005, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[13]  D. Altman,et al.  Polyp measurement using CT colonography: agreement with colonoscopy and effect of viewing conditions on interobserver and intraobserver agreement. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  Steve Halligan,et al.  Polyp measurement and size categorisation by CT colonography: effect of observer experience in a multi-centre setting , 2006, European Radiology.

[15]  Anna K. Jerebko,et al.  Symmetric Curvature Patterns for Colonic Polyp Detection , 2006, MICCAI.

[16]  S. Halligan,et al.  CT colonography: effect of colonic distension on polyp measurement accuracy and agreement-in vitro study. , 2006, Academic radiology.

[17]  Seong Ho Park,et al.  Polyp measurement reliability, accuracy, and discrepancy: optical colonoscopy versus CT colonography with pig colonic specimens. , 2007, Radiology.

[18]  Ethan J. Halpern,et al.  Threshold selection for CT angiography shaded surface display of the renal arteries , 2009, Journal of Digital Imaging.