CT colonography: external clinical validation of an algorithm for computer-assisted prone and supine registration.

PURPOSE: To perform external validation of a computer-assisted registration algorithm for prone and supine computed tomographic (CT) colonography and to compare the results with those of an existing centerline method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All contributing centers had institutional review board approval; participants provided informed consent. A validation sample of CT colonographic examinations of 51 patients with 68 polyps (6-55 mm) was selected from a publicly available, HIPAA compliant, anonymized archive. No patients were excluded because of poor preparation or inadequate distension. Corresponding prone and supine polyp coordinates were recorded, and endoluminal surfaces were registered automatically by using a computer algorithm. Two observers independently scored three-dimensional endoluminal polyp registration success. Results were compared with those obtained by using the normalized distance along the colonic centerline (NDACC) method. Pairwise Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare gross registration error and McNemar tests were used to compare polyp conspicuity. RESULTS: Registration was possible in all 51 patients, and 136 paired polyp coordinates were generated (68 polyps) to test the algorithm. Overall mean three-dimensional polyp registration error (mean ± standard deviation, 19.9 mm ± 20.4) was significantly less than that for the NDACC method (mean, 27.4 mm ± 15.1; P = .001). Accuracy was unaffected by colonic segment (P = .76) or luminal collapse (P = .066). During endoluminal review by two observers (272 matching tasks, 68 polyps, prone to supine and supine to prone coordinates), 223 (82%) polyp matches were visible (120° field of view) compared with just 129 (47%) when the NDACC method was used (P < .001). By using multiplanar visualization, 48 (70%) polyps were visible after scrolling ± 15 mm in any multiplanar axis compared with 16 (24%) for NDACC (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Computer-assisted registration is more accurate than the NDACC method for mapping the endoluminal surface and matching the location of polyps in corresponding prone and supine CT colonographic acquisitions.

Registration of the endoluminal surfaces of the colon derived from prone and supine CT colonography.

PURPOSE: Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a relatively new technique for detecting bowel cancer or potentially precancerous polyps. CT scanning is combined with three-dimensional (3D) image reconstruction to produce a virtual endoluminal representation similar to optical colonoscopy. Because retained fluid and stool can mimic pathology, CT data are acquired with the bowel cleansed and insufflated with gas and patient in both prone and supine positions. Radiologists then match visually endoluminal locations between the two acquisitions in order to determine whether apparent pathology is real or not. This process is hindered by the fact that the colon, essentially a long tube, can undergo considerable deformation between acquisitions. The authors present a novel approach to automatically establish spatial correspondence between prone and supine endoluminal colonic surfaces after surface parameterization, even in the case of local colon collapse. METHODS: The complexity of the registration task was reduced from a 3D to a 2D problem by mapping the surfaces extracted from prone and supine CT colonography onto a cylindrical parameterization. A nonrigid cylindrical registration was then performed to align the full colonic surfaces. The curvature information from the original 3D surfaces was used to determine correspondence. The method can also be applied to cases with regions of local colonic collapse by ignoring the collapsed regions during the registration. RESULTS: Using a development set, suitable parameters were found to constrain the cylindrical registration method. Then, the same registration parameters were applied to a different set of 13 validation cases, consisting of 8 fully distended cases and 5 cases exhibiting multiple colonic collapses. All polyps present were well aligned, with a mean (+/- std. dev.) registration error of 5.7 (+/- 3.4) mm. An additional set of 1175 reference points on haustral folds spread over the full endoluminal colon surfaces resulted in an error of 7.7 (+/- 7.4) mm. Here, 82% of folds were aligned correctly after registration with a further 15% misregistered by just onefold. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method reduces the 3D registration task to a cylindrical registration representing the endoluminal surface of the colon. Our algorithm uses surface curvature information as a similarity measure to drive registration to compensate for the large colorectal deformations that occur between prone and supine data acquisitions. The method has the potential to both enhance polyp detection and decrease the radiologist's interpretation time.