3D detection of colonic polyps by CT colonography: accuracy, pitfalls, and solutions by adjunct 2D workup.

Computed tomography colonography (CTC) enables evaluation of the colon with minimal invasiveness. In spite of advances in multidetector CT (MDCT) technology and advanced software features, including electronic bowel cleansing (digital removal and tagging of fluid and debris), a number of potential pitfalls in the evaluation of the 3D volumetric dataset persist. The purpose of this article is to illustrate the strengths and potential pitfalls in the detection of colorectal polyps using CTC via a primary three-dimensional (3D) approach for evaluation.

Value of MDCT in preoperative local staging of rectal cancer for predicting the necessity for neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant therapy may reduce local rectal cancer recurrence after total mesorectum extirpation. This study was performed to assess whether multi-detector row CT (MDCT) is capable of reliably differentiating UICC I (surgery) from UICC II-IV (neoadjuvant therapy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 29 patients underwent preoperative MDCT of the abdomen in a portal venous phase. Two blinded readers independently evaluated the datasets on a dedicated workstation using axial and coronal reformations. Local tumor extension (T), nodal status (N) and distant metastases (M) were evaluated and the UICC stage was determined. Findings were correlated with postoperative histology. RESULTS: Histologically, 9 patients were UICC I; 20 UICC > I (II: 7; III: 11; IV: 2). Reader 1 correctly identified 3 / 9 as UICC I, overstaged 6 / 9, and correctly staged 20 / 20 as UICC > I. Reader 2 correctly identified 4 / 9 as UICC I, overstaged 5 / 9, understaged 4 / 20 and correctly staged 16 / 20 as UICC > I (PPV UICC I 100 % [50 %] reader 1 [reader 2], NPV 77 % [76 %], accuracy 79 % [69 %]). Reasons for overstaging by reader 1 (reader 2) included false-positive lymph nodes (LN) in 5 (5), overgrading T 1 tumors as T 3 in 1(0), and T overgrading in 4 / 5 (2 / 5) patients with false-positive LN. CONCLUSION: MDCT failed to reliably identify UICC I in rectal cancer patients. Therefore, a strategy based solely on MDCT to identify patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant therapy does not seem appropriate.

[CT colonography: evaluation of two 3D algorithms in a screening population]. / CT-Kolografie: Vergleich zweier Visualisierungsalgorithmen an einem Screeningkollektiv.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this multicenter study was to compare a dissection display and an endoluminal display for CT colonography (CTC) by means of detection rates and evaluation time in a screening collective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4 blinded readers evaluated CTC datasets from 42 patients with 55 endoscopically confirmed polyps. The datasets were read in a randomized order using two different 3D visualization methods (endoluminal view vs. dissection display; EBW 2.0.1, Philips Medical Systems, Best/NL). Patients underwent cathartic cleansing as well as stool and fluid tagging. All readers except one were experienced in performing CTC. The per-lesion/per-patient sensitivity, per-patient specificity, and evaluation time were calculated. RESULTS: The overall per-lesion sensitivity using the dissection display (and endoluminal view) was 60% (53 %) for reader 1, 58% (60%) for reader 2, 67% (71%) for reader 3 and 55% (58%) for reader 4. The per-patient sensitivity using the dissection display (and endoluminal view) was 85% (85%) for reader 1, 80% (85%) for reader 2, 95% (90%) for reader 3 and 80% (80%) for reader 4. The per-patient specificity was 68% with dissection view (77% endoluminal view) for reader 1, 82% (82%) for reader 2, 59% (59%) for reader 3 and 82% (73%) for reader 4. The experienced readers were significantly faster using the perspective-filet view. CONCLUSION: Using a dissection display of CTC datasets does not result in superior detection rates for polyps if datasets are stool and fluid-tagged. 3 out of 4 readers evaluated the datasets significantly faster with the dissection display.