Evaluation of a standardized CT colonography training program for novice readers.

PURPOSE: To determine how many computed tomographic (CT) colonography training studies have to be evaluated by novice readers to obtain an adequate level of competence in polyp detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Six physicians (one radiologist, three radiology residents, two researchers) and three technicians completed a CT colonography training program. Two hundred CT colonographic examinations with colonoscopic verification were selected from a research database, with 100 CT colonographic examinations with at least one polyp 6 mm or larger. After a lecture session and short individual hands-on training, CT colonography training was done individually with immediate feedback of colonoscopy outcome. Per-polyp sensitivity was calculated for four sets of 50 CT colonographic examinations for lesions 6 mm or larger. By using logistic regression analyses, the number of CT colonographic examinations to reach 90% sensitivity for lesions 6 mm or larger was estimated. Reading times were registered. RESULTS: The average per-polyp sensitivity for lesions 6 mm or larger was 76% (207 of 270) in the first set of 50 CT colonographic examinations, 77% (262 of 342) in the second (P = .96 vs first set), 80% (310 of 387) in the third (P = .67 vs first set), and 91% (261 of 288) in the fourth (P = .018). The estimated number of CT colonographic examinations for a sufficient sensitivity was 164. Six of nine readers reached this level of competence within 175 CT colonographic examinations. Reading times decreased significantly from the first to the second set of 50 CT colonographic examinations for six readers. CONCLUSION: Novice CT colonography readers obtained sensitivity equal to that of experienced readers after practicing on average 164 CT colonographic studies.

Low-fiber diet in limited bowel preparation for CT colonography: Influence on image quality and patient acceptance.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a low-fiber diet is necessary for optimal tagging-only bowel preparation for CT colonography. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutively enrolled patients received an iodine bowel preparation: 25 patients used a low-fiber diet and 25 used no special diet. One observer determined the tagging quality per segment on a 5-point scale (1, inhomogeneous tagging; 5, excellent preparation) and the largest size of untagged feces. Semiautomatic measurements of density and homogeneity of residual feces were performed. Patient acceptance was assessed with questionnaires. Per polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm in diameter and larger was calculated for two experienced observers. RESULTS: Tagging quality was scored less than grade 5 in 15 segments (10%) in the low-fiber diet group and in 25 segments (17%) in the unrestricted diet group (p = 0.098). One piece of untagged feces 10 mm in diameter or larger was found in the low-fiber diet group, and 12 were found in the unrestricted diet group (p < 0.001). Automatic measurement of attenuation resulted in a mean value of 594 HU in the low-fiber diet group and 630 HU in the unrestricted diet group (p = 0.297). In the low-fiber diet group, 22% of patients indicated that the bowel preparation was extremely or severely burdensome; 8% of patients in the unrestricted diet group had this response (p = 0.19). Thirty-two polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger were found in the low-fiber diet group and 30 in the unrestricted diet group. Observer 1 had 84% and 77% sensitivity in detecting polyps 6 mm in diameter or larger in the low-fiber diet and unrestricted diet groups, respectively (p = 0.443), and observer 2 had 97% and 83% sensitivity (p = 0.099). CONCLUSION: Use of a low-fiber diet in bowel preparation for CT colonography results in significantly less untagged feces and shows a trend toward better residue homogeneity.

Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the variability and systematic differences in polyp measurements on optical colonoscopy and CT colonography. MATERIALS: Gastroenterologists measured 51 polyps by visual estimation, forceps comparison and linear probe. CT colonography observers randomly assessed polyp size two-dimensionally (abdominal and intermediate window) and three-dimensionally (manually and semi-automatically). Linear mixed models were used to assess the variability and systematic differences between CT colonography and optical colonoscopy techniques. RESULTS: The variability of forceps and linear probe measurements was comparable and both showed less variability than measurement by visual assessment. Measurements by linear probe were 0.7 mm smaller than measurements by visual assessment or by forceps. The variability of all CT colonography techniques was lower than for measurements by forceps or visual assessment and sometimes lower (only 2D intermediate window and manual 3D) compared with measurements by linear probe. All CT colonography measurements judged polyps to be larger than optical colonoscopy, with differences ranging from 0.7 to 2.3 mm. CONCLUSION: A linear probe does not reduce the measurement variability of endoscopists compared with the forceps. Measurement differences between observers on CT colonography were usually smaller than at optical colonoscopy. Polyps appeared larger when using various CT colonography techniques than when measured during optical colonoscopy.

CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare a 1-day with a 2-day iodine bowel preparation for CT colonography in a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients underwent CT colonography and colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. The first 50 patients (group 1) ingested 7 50 ml iodinated contrast starting 2 days before CT colonography. The latter 50 patients (group 2) ingested 4 50 ml iodinated contrast starting 1 day before CT colonography. Per colonic segment measurements of residual stool attenuation and homogeneity were performed, and a subjective evaluation of tagging quality (grade 1-5) was done. Independently, two reviewers performed polyp and carcinoma detection. RESULTS: The tagging density was 638 and 618 HU (p = 0.458) and homogeneity 91 and 86 HU for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.145). The tagging quality was graded 5 (excellent) in 90% of all segments in group 1 and 91% in group 2 (p = 0.749). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for lesions >or=10 mm was 86% in group 1 and 97% in group 2 (p = 0.355). Patient burden from diarrhoea significantly decreased for patients in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: One-day preparation with meglumine ioxithalamate results in an improved patient acceptability compared with 2-day preparation and has a comparable, excellent image quality and good diagnostic performance.

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in an FOBT positive screening population.

PURPOSE: Aim was to evaluate the accuracy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) for detection of colorectal neoplasia in a Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) positive screening population. METHODS: In three different institutions, consecutive FOBT positives underwent CTC after laxative free iodine tagging bowel preparation followed by colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. Each CTC was read by two experienced observers. For CTC and for colonoscopy the per-polyp sensitivity and per-patient sensitivity and specificity were calculated for detection of carcinomas, advanced adenomas, and adenomas. RESULTS: In total 22 of 302 included FOBT positive participants had a carcinoma (7%) and 137 had an adenoma or carcinoma ≥10 mm (45%). CTC sensitivity for carcinoma was 95% with one rectal carcinoma as false negative finding. CTC sensitivity for advanced adenomas was 92% (95% CI: 88-96) vs. 96% (95% CI: 93-99) for colonoscopy (P = 0.26). For adenomas and carcinomas ≥10 mm the CTC per-polyp sensitivity was 93% (95% CI: 89-97) vs. 97% (95% CI: 94-99) for colonoscopy (P = 0.17). The per-patient sensitivity for the detection of adenomas and carcinomas ≥10 mm was 95% (95% CI: 91-99) for CTC vs. 99% (95% CI: 98-100) for colonoscopy (P = 0.07), while the per-patient specificity was 90% (95% CI: 86-95) and 96% (95% CI: 94-99), respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CTC with limited bowel preparation performed in an FOBT positive screening population has high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of adenomas and carcinomas and a sensitivity similar to that of colonoscopy for relevant lesions.

Automated detection and segmentation of large lesions in CT colonography.

Computerized tomographic colonography is a minimally invasive technique for the detection of colorectal polyps and carcinoma. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) schemes are designed to help radiologists locating colorectal lesions in an efficient and accurate manner. Large lesions are often initially detected as multiple small objects, due to which such lesions may be missed or misclassified by CAD systems. We propose a novel method for automated detection and segmentation of all large lesions, i.e., large polyps as well as carcinoma. Our detection algorithm is incorporated in a classical CAD system. Candidate detection comprises preselection based on a local measure for protrusion and clustering based on geodesic distance. The generated clusters are further segmented and analyzed. The segmentation algorithm is a thresholding operation in which the threshold is adaptively selected. The segmentation provides a size measurement that is used to compute the likelihood of a cluster to be a large lesion. The large lesion detection algorithm was evaluated on data from 35 patients having 41 large lesions (19 of which malignant) confirmed by optical colonoscopy. At five false positive (FP) per scan, the classical system achieved a sensitivity of 78%, while the system augmented with the large lesion detector achieved 83% sensitivity. For malignant lesions, the performance at five FP/scan was increased from 79% to 95%. The good results on malignant lesions demonstrate that the proposed algorithm may provide relevant additional information for the clinical decision process.

The outcome of the axillofemoral bypass: a retrospective analysis of 45 patients.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to retrospectively analyze outcomes of axillofemoral bypass (AxFB) operations performed in patients with severe comorbidities. METHODS: All patients (n = 45) who received an AxFB between 1990 and 2005 for aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD, n = 35) or infectious aortic disease (IAD, n = 10) were included. Information on patency of the bypass and mortality was retrieved from patient records. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to illustrate survival rates, limb salvage, and primary and secondary patency. RESULTS: Included patients had several comorbidities and a high operative risk. In this group, a 30-day mortality rate of 20% was found: 17% for the AIOD group, and 30% for the IAD group. During 5-year follow-up 20 patients died, of which 15 during the first year after operation. Survival rates were at 64 and 41% at 1 and 5 years and limb salvage rates were 84% for both these years. Primary patency rates at 1 and 5 years were 72 and 58%, respectively, and secondary patency rates were 86% at both time points. CONCLUSIONS: High mortality rates were found in AIOD or IAD patients who received an AxFB. However, for high-risk patients with an already reduced life expectancy, the AxFB remains an alternative with acceptable patency rates.

Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers?

The purpose of this study was to compare a primary uncleansed 2D and a primary electronically cleansed 3D reading strategy in CTC in limited prepped patients. Seventy-two patients received a low-fibre diet with oral iodine before CT-colonography. Six novices and two experienced observers reviewed both cleansed and uncleansed examinations in randomized order. Mean per-polyp sensitivity was compared between the methods by using generalized estimating equations. Mean per-patient sensitivity, and specificity were compared using the McNemar test. Results were stratified for experience (experienced observers versus novice observers). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices using cleansed 3D (65%; 95%CI 57-73%) compared with uncleansed 2D (51%; 95%CI 44-59%). For experienced observers there was no significant difference. Mean per-patient sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices as well: respectively 75% (95%CI 70-80%) versus 64% (95%CI 59-70%). For experienced observers there was no statistically significant difference. Specificity for both novices and experienced observers was not significantly different. For novices primary electronically cleansed 3D is better for polyp detection than primary uncleansed 2D.

CT colonography polyp matching: differences between experienced readers.

The purpose of this study was to investigate if experienced readers differ when matching polyps shown by both CT colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) and to explore the reasons for discrepancy. Twenty-eight CTC cases with corresponding OC were presented to eight experienced CTC readers. Cases represented a broad spectrum of findings, not completely fulfilling typical matching criteria. In 21 cases there was a single polyp on CTC and OC; in seven there were multiple polyps. Agreement between readers for matching was analyzed. For the 21 single-polyp cases, the number of correct matches per reader varied from 13 to 19. Almost complete agreement between readers was observed in 15 cases (71%), but substantial discrepancy was found for the remaining six (29%) probably due to large perceived differences in polyp size between CT and OC. Readers were able to match between 27 (71%) and 35 (92%) of the 38 CTC detected polyps in the seven cases with multiple polyps. Experienced CTC readers agree to a considerable extent when matching polyps between CTC and subsequent OC, but non-negligible disagreement exists.

Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?

We prospectively determined whether computer-aided detection (CAD) could improve the performance characteristics of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in a population of increased risk for colorectal cancer. Therefore, we included 170 consecutive patients that underwent both CTC and colonoscopy. All findings >or=6 mm were evaluated at colonoscopy by segmental unblinding. We determined per-patient sensitivity and specificity for polyps >or=6 mm and >or=10 mm without and with computer-aided detection (CAD). The McNemar test was used for comparison the results without and with CAD. Unblinded colonoscopy detected 50 patients with lesions >or=6 mm and 25 patients with lesions >or=10 mm. Sensitivity of CTC without CAD for these size categories was 80% (40/50, 95% CI: 69-81%) and 64% (16/25, 95% CI: 45-83%), respectively. CTC with CAD detected one additional patient with a lesion >or=6 mm and two with a lesion >or=10 mm, resulting in a sensitivity of 82% (41/50, 95% CI: 71-93%) (p = 0.50) and 72% (18/25, 95% CI: 54-90%) (p = 1.0), respectively. Specificity without CAD for polyps >or=6 mm and >or=10 mm was 84% (101/120, 95% CI: 78-91%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90-98%), respectively. With CAD, the specificity remained (nearly) unchanged: 83% (99/120, 95% CI: 76-89%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90-98%), respectively. Thus, although CTC with CAD detected a few more patients than CTC without CAD, it had no statistically significant positive influence on CTC performance.