CT colonography:: automatic measurement of polyp diameter compared with manual assessment -: an in-vivo study

被引:10
作者
Burling, D. [1 ]
Halligan, S. [1 ]
Taylor, S. A. [1 ]
Honeyfield, L. [1 ]
Roddie, M. E. [1 ]
机构
[1] UCL Hosp, Dept Specialist Radiol, London NW1 2BU, England
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.crad.2006.09.018
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 [临床医学]; 100207 [影像医学与核医学]; 1009 [特种医学];
摘要
AIM: To investigate whether automated diameter assessment was feasible for CT colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two experienced observers independently measured the maximum diameter of 50 polyps (colonoscopic reference size range 5-12 mm) from colonography datasets using conventionally placed software callipers and a variety of two-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) window settings (colon, abdominal, bone, lung), and also three-dimensional (3D) perspective rendering. Polyps were also measured using automated polyp-segmentation software. Agreement between observers and with the colonoscopic reference measurement was determined using Bland-Altman, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney U analyses. RESULTS: Inter-observer agreement was similar for all. window displays: mean difference in millimetres (SD difference; 95% limits of agreement) ranged from 0 (1.7, -3.3, 3.3) for 2D colon to -1.1 mm (1.6, -4.3, 2.0) for 3D, compared with -0.5 (2.09, -4.6, 3.6) for automated measurement. When compared to colonoscopy, the largest discrepancy occurred using the 3D display (mean difference 1.3 mm, 2.5 mm for each observer). There was also a significant difference between estimates and reference size when using the 2D abdominal and 3D displays (p = 0.03, <0.001). CONCLUSION: Automated polyp measurement is possible in vivo. Automated and conventional methods have comparable inter-observer agreement. The greatest measurement error is encountered when using a 3D display for estimates of diameter. (C) 2006 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:145 / 151
页数:7
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]
Consensus on current clinical practice of virtual colonoscopy [J].
Barish, MA ;
Soto, JA ;
Ferrucci, JT .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2005, 184 (03) :786-792
[2]
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[3]
Computed tomography colonography - Automated diameter and volume measurement of colonic polyps compared with a manual technique - In vitro study [J].
Burling, D ;
Halligan, S ;
Roddie, ME ;
McQuillan, J ;
Honeyfield, L ;
Amin, H ;
Dehmeshki, D ;
Taylor, SA ;
McFarland, EG .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2005, 29 (03) :387-393
[4]
BURLING D, IN PRESS EUR RADIOL
[5]
Polyp measurement using CT colonography: Agreement with colonoscopy and effect of viewing conditions on interobserver and intraobserver agreement [J].
Burling, David ;
Halligan, Steve ;
Taylor, Stuart ;
Brennand, Duncan J. ;
Altman, Douglas G. ;
Bassett, Paul ;
Atkin, Wendy ;
Bartram, Clive I. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2006, 186 (06) :1597-1604
[6]
DEHMESHKI J, IN PRESS EUR RADIOL
[7]
A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps [J].
Fenlon, HM ;
Nunes, DP ;
Schroy, PC ;
Barish, MA ;
Clarke, PD ;
Ferrucci, JT .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1999, 341 (20) :1496-1503
[8]
FENNERTY MB, 1993, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V88, P496
[9]
Growth and recurrence of colorectal polyps: A double-blind 3-year intervention with calcium and antioxidants [J].
Hofstad, B ;
Almendingen, K ;
Vatn, M ;
Andersen, SN ;
Owen, RW ;
Larsen, S ;
Osnes, M .
DIGESTION, 1998, 59 (02) :148-156
[10]
Computer-aided detection of polyps in a colon phantom: Effect of scan orientation, polyp size, collimation, and dose [J].
Ling, SH ;
Summers, RM ;
Loew, MH ;
McCollough, CH ;
Johnson, CD .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2002, 26 (06) :1013-1018