Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer

Gelder, Rogier E. van; Nio, C. Yung; Florie, Jasper; Bartelsman, J. F. W. M.; Snel, P.; Jager, Steven W. de; Deventer, Sander J. van; Laméris, Johan S.; Bossuyt, Patrick M.; Stoker, Jaap

doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2004.03.055

Cited by 156 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A perceptive error was considered to be made if a polyp was detected by one or two observers, but not all three observers. We used a random sample of patients that had participated in an accuracy study of 3D CT colonography with colonoscopy (reference standard) [14]. After an interval of at least three months all three reviewers evaluated the same patients with a primary 2D review method.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The exclusion criteria, bowel preparation and the CT colonography and colonoscopy procedure are described in detail elsewhere [14].…”

Section: Patients and Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lesion status was determined by a CT colonography researcher not involved in the reading of cases [R.E.V.G.]. Details concerning the determination of lesion status are described elsewhere [14].…”

Section: Determination Of Lesion Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography

et al. 2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of our study was to compare primary three-dimensional (3D) and primary two-dimensional (2D) review methods for CT colonography with regard to polyp detection and perceptive errors. CT colonography studies of 77 patients were read twice by three reviewers, first with a primary 3D method and then with a primary 2D method. Mean numbers of true and false positives, patient sensitivity and specificity and perceptive errors were calculated with colonoscopy as a reference standard. A perceptive error was made if a polyp was not detected by all reviewers. Mean sensitivity for large (≥10 mm) polyps for primary 3D and 2D review was 81% (14.7/18) and 70% (12.7/18), respectively (p-values ≥0.25). Mean numbers of large false positives for primary 3D and 2D were 8.3 and 5.3, respectively. With primary 3D and 2D review 1 and 6 perceptive errors, respectively, were made in 18 large polyps (p=0.06). For mediumsized (6-9 mm) polyps these values were for primary 3D and 2D, respectively: mean sensitivity: 67%(11.3/17) and 61%(10.3/17; p-values≥ 0.45), number of false positives: 33.3 and 15.6, and perceptive errors : 4 and 6 (p= 0.53). No significant differences were found in the detection of large and medium-sized polyps between primary 3D and 2D review.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The exclusion criteria, bowel preparation and the CT colonography and colonoscopy procedure are described in detail elsewhere [14].…”

Section: Patients and Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography

et al. 2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incorporated commercially available CAD algorithm (ColonCAD, Philips Medical Systems, Best, The Netherlands) had a fixed sensitivity threshold that was not changed during the study. The CAD algorithm was trained on annotated polyp data from 13 patients from a comparative study of 249 patients [19]. These datasets had been verified by colonoscopy and contained a total of 80 polyps ≥5 mm.…”

Section: Ctc Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

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?

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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?Abstract 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 ≥6 mm were evaluated at colonoscopy by segmental unblinding. We determined perpatient sensitivity and specificity for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥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 ≥6 mm and 25 patients with lesions ≥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 ≥6 mm and two with a lesion ≥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 ≥6 mm and ≥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.

show abstract

“…In CTC, which relies entirely on topographical contrast, multiple studies have reported high lesion detection sensitivity. 5,6 In chromoendoscopy, surface dyes that highlight topography are used, and lesion detection rates have been documented to increase. 7,8 Despite their recognized advantages, CTC and chromoendoscopy are infrequently used due to the increased cost associated with follow-up colonoscopy for CTC and the significant time required for chromoendoscopy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photometric stereo endoscopy

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. While color video endoscopy has enabled wide-field examination of the gastrointestinal tract, it often misses or incorrectly classifies lesions. Many of these missed lesions exhibit characteristic three-dimensional surface topographies. An endoscopic system that adds topographical measurements to conventional color imagery could therefore increase lesion detection and improve classification accuracy. We introduce photometric stereo endoscopy (PSE), a technique which allows high spatial frequency components of surface topography to be acquired simultaneously with conventional two-dimensional color imagery. We implement this technique in an endoscopic form factor and demonstrate that it can acquire the topography of small features with complex geometries and heterogeneous optical properties. PSE imaging of ex vivo human gastrointestinal tissue shows that surface topography measurements enable differentiation of abnormal shapes from surrounding normal tissue. Together, these results confirm that the topographical measurements can be obtained with relatively simple hardware in an endoscopic form factor, and suggest the potential of PSE to improve lesion detection and classification in gastrointestinal imaging. © The Authors. Published by SPIE under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Distribution or reproduction of this work in whole or in part requires full attribution of the original publication, including its DOI.

show abstract

Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer

Cited by 156 publications

References 29 publications

A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography

A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography

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?

Photometric stereo endoscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About