Effect of slice thickness and primary 2D versus 3D virtual dissection on colorectal lesion detection at CT colonography in 452 asymptomatic adults

C. Daniel Johnson, Joel Garland Fletcher, Robert L. MacCarty, Jayawant Mandrekar, William S. Harmsen, Paul John Limburg, Lynn A. Wilson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare the performance of primary 3D search using 360° virtual dissection with primary 2D search using a 2.5- versus a 1.25-mm slice thickness. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Four hundred fifty-two asymptomatic patients underwent CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy. Examinations were reconstructed to 1.25- and 2.5-mm slice thicknesses and interpreted using primary 3D search (360° virtual dissection) and primary 2D search. Two of three experienced reviewers were randomly assigned to each case; 1,808 interpretations were performed. RESULTS. There were 64 adenomas ≥ 6 mm, 26 of which were large adenomas ≥ 1 cm. For adenomas 6-9 mm in diameter, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) using 2.5-mm data sets was 0.66, 0.62, 0.90 and 0.78, 0.69, 0.67 for reviewers 1, 2, and 3, respectively, using primary 3D versus 2D search (p = not significant [NS]). For neoplasms ≥ 10 mm, the AUC using 2.5-mm data sets was 0.74, 0.85, 0.89 and 0.66, 0.86, 0.92 for reviewers 1, 2, and 3 using primary 3D versus 2D search (p = NS). There was no significant difference using 1.25-mm collimation. Double review using both primary 3D and 2D search yielded sensitivities of 84% (16/19) and 95% (18/19) for large neoplasms (≥ 1 cm) using 2.5- and 1.25-mm data sets, respectively. Five of five (100%) adenocarcinomas were identified. The sensitivity of colonoscopy for large neoplasms was 77% (20/26) (20% [1/5] for adenocarcinoma). CONCLUSION. No advantage exists for 1.25- or 2.5-mm slice thickness or for primary 3D versus 2D search at CTC. Double review using primary 3D (virtual dissection) and 2D search reduces interobserver variability and competes with colonoscopy for the detection of large lesions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)672-680
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume189
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2007

Fingerprint

Computed Tomographic Colonography
Colonoscopy
Adenoma
Dissection
Area Under Curve
Adenocarcinoma
Neoplasms
Observer Variation
ROC Curve
Datasets

Keywords

  • Colonoscopy
  • Colorectal cancer
  • CT colonography
  • Oncologic imaging
  • Virtual dissection display

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

@article{13509b2d4156441fa44e4a80274c68af,
title = "Effect of slice thickness and primary 2D versus 3D virtual dissection on colorectal lesion detection at CT colonography in 452 asymptomatic adults",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare the performance of primary 3D search using 360° virtual dissection with primary 2D search using a 2.5- versus a 1.25-mm slice thickness. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Four hundred fifty-two asymptomatic patients underwent CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy. Examinations were reconstructed to 1.25- and 2.5-mm slice thicknesses and interpreted using primary 3D search (360° virtual dissection) and primary 2D search. Two of three experienced reviewers were randomly assigned to each case; 1,808 interpretations were performed. RESULTS. There were 64 adenomas ≥ 6 mm, 26 of which were large adenomas ≥ 1 cm. For adenomas 6-9 mm in diameter, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) using 2.5-mm data sets was 0.66, 0.62, 0.90 and 0.78, 0.69, 0.67 for reviewers 1, 2, and 3, respectively, using primary 3D versus 2D search (p = not significant [NS]). For neoplasms ≥ 10 mm, the AUC using 2.5-mm data sets was 0.74, 0.85, 0.89 and 0.66, 0.86, 0.92 for reviewers 1, 2, and 3 using primary 3D versus 2D search (p = NS). There was no significant difference using 1.25-mm collimation. Double review using both primary 3D and 2D search yielded sensitivities of 84{\%} (16/19) and 95{\%} (18/19) for large neoplasms (≥ 1 cm) using 2.5- and 1.25-mm data sets, respectively. Five of five (100{\%}) adenocarcinomas were identified. The sensitivity of colonoscopy for large neoplasms was 77{\%} (20/26) (20{\%} [1/5] for adenocarcinoma). CONCLUSION. No advantage exists for 1.25- or 2.5-mm slice thickness or for primary 3D versus 2D search at CTC. Double review using primary 3D (virtual dissection) and 2D search reduces interobserver variability and competes with colonoscopy for the detection of large lesions.",
keywords = "Colonoscopy, Colorectal cancer, CT colonography, Oncologic imaging, Virtual dissection display",
author = "Johnson, {C. Daniel} and Fletcher, {Joel Garland} and MacCarty, {Robert L.} and Jayawant Mandrekar and Harmsen, {William S.} and Limburg, {Paul John} and Wilson, {Lynn A.}",
year = "2007",
month = "9",
doi = "10.2214/AJR.07.2354",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "189",
pages = "672--680",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of slice thickness and primary 2D versus 3D virtual dissection on colorectal lesion detection at CT colonography in 452 asymptomatic adults

AU - Johnson, C. Daniel

AU - Fletcher, Joel Garland

AU - MacCarty, Robert L.

AU - Mandrekar, Jayawant

AU - Harmsen, William S.

AU - Limburg, Paul John

AU - Wilson, Lynn A.

PY - 2007/9

Y1 - 2007/9

N2 - OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare the performance of primary 3D search using 360° virtual dissection with primary 2D search using a 2.5- versus a 1.25-mm slice thickness. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Four hundred fifty-two asymptomatic patients underwent CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy. Examinations were reconstructed to 1.25- and 2.5-mm slice thicknesses and interpreted using primary 3D search (360° virtual dissection) and primary 2D search. Two of three experienced reviewers were randomly assigned to each case; 1,808 interpretations were performed. RESULTS. There were 64 adenomas ≥ 6 mm, 26 of which were large adenomas ≥ 1 cm. For adenomas 6-9 mm in diameter, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) using 2.5-mm data sets was 0.66, 0.62, 0.90 and 0.78, 0.69, 0.67 for reviewers 1, 2, and 3, respectively, using primary 3D versus 2D search (p = not significant [NS]). For neoplasms ≥ 10 mm, the AUC using 2.5-mm data sets was 0.74, 0.85, 0.89 and 0.66, 0.86, 0.92 for reviewers 1, 2, and 3 using primary 3D versus 2D search (p = NS). There was no significant difference using 1.25-mm collimation. Double review using both primary 3D and 2D search yielded sensitivities of 84% (16/19) and 95% (18/19) for large neoplasms (≥ 1 cm) using 2.5- and 1.25-mm data sets, respectively. Five of five (100%) adenocarcinomas were identified. The sensitivity of colonoscopy for large neoplasms was 77% (20/26) (20% [1/5] for adenocarcinoma). CONCLUSION. No advantage exists for 1.25- or 2.5-mm slice thickness or for primary 3D versus 2D search at CTC. Double review using primary 3D (virtual dissection) and 2D search reduces interobserver variability and competes with colonoscopy for the detection of large lesions.

AB - OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare the performance of primary 3D search using 360° virtual dissection with primary 2D search using a 2.5- versus a 1.25-mm slice thickness. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Four hundred fifty-two asymptomatic patients underwent CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy. Examinations were reconstructed to 1.25- and 2.5-mm slice thicknesses and interpreted using primary 3D search (360° virtual dissection) and primary 2D search. Two of three experienced reviewers were randomly assigned to each case; 1,808 interpretations were performed. RESULTS. There were 64 adenomas ≥ 6 mm, 26 of which were large adenomas ≥ 1 cm. For adenomas 6-9 mm in diameter, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) using 2.5-mm data sets was 0.66, 0.62, 0.90 and 0.78, 0.69, 0.67 for reviewers 1, 2, and 3, respectively, using primary 3D versus 2D search (p = not significant [NS]). For neoplasms ≥ 10 mm, the AUC using 2.5-mm data sets was 0.74, 0.85, 0.89 and 0.66, 0.86, 0.92 for reviewers 1, 2, and 3 using primary 3D versus 2D search (p = NS). There was no significant difference using 1.25-mm collimation. Double review using both primary 3D and 2D search yielded sensitivities of 84% (16/19) and 95% (18/19) for large neoplasms (≥ 1 cm) using 2.5- and 1.25-mm data sets, respectively. Five of five (100%) adenocarcinomas were identified. The sensitivity of colonoscopy for large neoplasms was 77% (20/26) (20% [1/5] for adenocarcinoma). CONCLUSION. No advantage exists for 1.25- or 2.5-mm slice thickness or for primary 3D versus 2D search at CTC. Double review using primary 3D (virtual dissection) and 2D search reduces interobserver variability and competes with colonoscopy for the detection of large lesions.

KW - Colonoscopy

KW - Colorectal cancer

KW - CT colonography

KW - Oncologic imaging

KW - Virtual dissection display

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548274445&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548274445&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2214/AJR.07.2354

DO - 10.2214/AJR.07.2354

M3 - Article

C2 - 17715116

AN - SCOPUS:34548274445

VL - 189

SP - 672

EP - 680

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 3

ER -