[Assessment of two different software solutions for the evaluation of CT colonography]. / Evaluation zwei verschiedener Softwarelösungen zur Auswertung von CT-Kolonographien.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To compare a commercial CT colonography software ("Colonography", Siemens, Forchheim) with a non-commercial post-processing system ("Colotux", Department of Informatics). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Identical data sets of 10 patients, who underwent an ultra-low-dose multi-detector CT colonography (ULD-MDCTC) (4x1 mm collimation, 8 mm pitch, 120 kVp, 10 mAs) were analyzed retrospectively. Assessment was performed using both software solutions by two resident radiologists, who did not have any experience with any colonography software tool before and who did not know the clinical symptoms of the patients or the results of the conventional colonoscopy. Both systems were analyzed using several subjective quality criteria including workflow, handling, image quality, endoluminal navigation and analysis of lesions with grading on a 5-point-scale. Results concerning polyps were compared between the two systems as well as with conventional colonoscopy. RESULTS: Both colonography systems detected the same number of polyps. Although both showed some advantages for single criteria, no relevant difference was noted in general for subjective assessment. The time for calculation of three dimensional interactive volumes was three times longer for "Colotux" compared to "Colonography." Linux-based "Colotux" showed a trend towards better subjective image quality and easier measurement of polyp size. An intuitive desktop and "Syngo"-workflow integration were advantages of "Colonography." CONCLUSION: The analysis of CT colonographies (4-detector-row-CT-scanner, ultra low dose technique, supine position) can adequately be achieved by both software solutions. There was no significant subjective or objective difference of quality between a "stand-alone" individual system and a commercial workflow-integrated solution. A relevant factor for decision between the two systems may be the difference in time needed for the 3D volume calculation, especially in institutes with a high frequency of examinations.