CT colonography: visualization methods, interpretation, and pitfalls.

Virtual colonoscopy interpretation is improving rapidly with the development of efficient software using two-dimensional, three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal, and 3D novel views such as those that seem to cut the colon open and lay it flat for interpretation. Comparison of these various views, comparisons of supine and prone positioning, and comparisons of lung and soft tissue windows aid in the recognition of various pitfalls of interpretation.

[1]  Abraham H Dachman,et al.  Quality and consistency in CT colonography and research reporting. , 2004, Radiology.

[2]  P. Lefere,et al.  Virtual colonoscopy : a practical guide , 2006 .

[3]  M. Macari,et al.  Comparison of time-efficient CT colonography with two- and three-dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  Hiroyuki Yoshida,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis for CT colonography. , 2004, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[5]  Abraham H Dachman.  Advice for optimizing colonic distention and minimizing risk of perforation during CT colonography. , 2006, Radiology.

[6]  Carlo Catalano,et al.  Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. , 2004, Gastroenterology.

[7]  P. Pickhardt,et al.  Surface visualization at 3D endoluminal CT colonography: degree of coverage and implications for polyp detection. , 2006, Gastroenterology.

[8]  Benjamin Littenberg,et al.  CT colonography: multiobserver diagnostic performance. , 2002, Radiology.

[9]  M. Zalis,et al.  Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. , 2006, Radiology.

[10]  K R Hoffmann,et al.  CT colonography with three-dimensional problem solving for detection of colonic polyps. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Translucency rendering in 3D endoluminal CT colonography: a useful tool for increasing polyp specificity and decreasing interpretation time. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  H. Hoppe,et al.  Virtual colon dissection with CT colonography compared with axial interpretation and conventional colonoscopy: preliminary results. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  F. M. Vos,et al.  Three-dimensional display modes for CT colonography: conventional 3D virtual colonoscopy versus unfolded cube projection. , 2003, Radiology.

[14]  Abraham H. Dachman,et al.  Comparison of routine and unprepped CT colonography augmented by low fiber diet and stool tagging: a pilot study , 2006, Abdominal Imaging.

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

[16]  M. Macari,et al.  Pitfalls of using three-dimensional CT colonography with two-dimensional imaging correlation. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  A. Dachman,et al.  Cecal mobility: a potential pitfall of CT colonography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  J. Fletcher,et al.  CT colonography using 360° virtual dissection : A feasibility study , 2006 .

[19]  A. Hara,et al.  Detection of flat lesions in the colon with CT colonography , 2002, Abdominal Imaging.

[20]  M. Macari,et al.  Positional change in colon polyps at CT colonography. , 2004, Radiology.

[21]  S Halligan,et al.  CT colonography: methods, pathology and pitfalls. , 2003, Clinical radiology.

[22]  A. Aschoff,et al.  CT colonography: comparison of a colon dissection display versus 3D endoluminal view for the detection of polyps , 2005, European Radiology.

[23]  Marc Baekelandt,et al.  Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance. , 2002, Radiology.

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

[25]  Abraham H. Dachman,et al.  Atlas of Virtual Colonoscopy , 2003, Springer New York.

[26]  T. Winter,et al.  Polyp volume versus linear size measurements at CT colonography: implications for noninvasive surveillance of unresected colorectal lesions. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[27]  Inverted appendiceal orifice masquerading as a cecal polyp on virtual colonoscopy. , 2006, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[28]  Ronald M. Summers,et al.  Synchronous navigation for CT colonography , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[29]  A. Dachman,et al.  Characterization of Normal Ileocecal Valve Density on CT Colonography , 2006, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[30]  D S Paik,et al.  Visualization modes for CT colonography using cylindrical and planar map projections. , 2000, Journal of computer assisted tomography.