Polyp measurements with CT colonography: Multiple-reader, multiple-workstation comparison

Brett M. Young, Joel Garland Fletcher, Scott R. Paulsen, Fargol Booya, C. Daniel Johnson, Kristina T. Johnson, Zackary Melton, Drew Rodysill, Jayawant Mandrekar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The risk of invasive colorectal cancer in colorectal polyps correlates with lesion size. Our purpose was to define the most accurate methods for measuring polyp size at CT colonography (CTC) using three models of workstations and multiple observers. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Six reviewers measured 24 unique polyps of known size (5, 7, 10, and 12 mm), shape (sessile, flat, and pedunculated), and location (straight or curved bowel segment) using CTC data sets obtained at two doses (5 mAs and 65 mAs) and a previously described colonic phantom model. Reviewers measured the largest diameter of polyps on three proprietary workstations. Each polyp was measured with lung and soft-tissue windows on axial, 2D multiplanar reconstruction (MPR), and 3D images. RESULTS. There were significant differences among measurements obtained at various settings within each workstation (p < 0.0001). Measurements on 2D images were more accurate with lung window than with soft-tissue window settings (p < 0.0001). For the 65-mAs data set, the most accurate measurements were obtained in analysis of axial images with lung window, 2D MPR images with lung window, and 3D tissue cube images for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea workstations, respectively, without significant differences in accuracy among techniques (0.11 < p < 0.59). The mean absolute error values for these optimal settings were 0.48 mm, 0.61 mm, and 0.76 mm, respectively, for the three workstations. Within the ultralow-dose 5-mAs data set the best methods for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea were axial with lung window, 2D MPR with lung window, and 2D MPR with lung window, respectively. Use of nearly all measurement methods, except for the Vitrea 3D tissue cube and the Wizard 2D MPR with lung window, resulted in undermeasurement of the true size of the polyps. CONCLUSION. Use of CTC computer workstations facilitates accurate polyp measurement. For routine CTC examinations, polyps should be measured with lung window settings on 2D axial or MPR images (Wizard and Advantage) or 3D images (Vitrea). When these optimal methods are used, these three commercial workstations do not differ significantly in acquisition of accurate polyp measurements at routine dose settings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)122-129
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume188
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2007

Fingerprint

Computed Tomographic Colonography
Polyps
Lung
Computer-Assisted Image Processing
Colorectal Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Cancer
  • Colon
  • CT colonography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Polyp measurements with CT colonography : Multiple-reader, multiple-workstation comparison. / Young, Brett M.; Fletcher, Joel Garland; Paulsen, Scott R.; Booya, Fargol; Johnson, C. Daniel; Johnson, Kristina T.; Melton, Zackary; Rodysill, Drew; Mandrekar, Jayawant.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 188, No. 1, 01.2007, p. 122-129.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Young, Brett M. ; Fletcher, Joel Garland ; Paulsen, Scott R. ; Booya, Fargol ; Johnson, C. Daniel ; Johnson, Kristina T. ; Melton, Zackary ; Rodysill, Drew ; Mandrekar, Jayawant. / Polyp measurements with CT colonography : Multiple-reader, multiple-workstation comparison. In: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2007 ; Vol. 188, No. 1. pp. 122-129.
@article{dad02b9c721b46e3a673332274bf3115,
title = "Polyp measurements with CT colonography: Multiple-reader, multiple-workstation comparison",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. The risk of invasive colorectal cancer in colorectal polyps correlates with lesion size. Our purpose was to define the most accurate methods for measuring polyp size at CT colonography (CTC) using three models of workstations and multiple observers. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Six reviewers measured 24 unique polyps of known size (5, 7, 10, and 12 mm), shape (sessile, flat, and pedunculated), and location (straight or curved bowel segment) using CTC data sets obtained at two doses (5 mAs and 65 mAs) and a previously described colonic phantom model. Reviewers measured the largest diameter of polyps on three proprietary workstations. Each polyp was measured with lung and soft-tissue windows on axial, 2D multiplanar reconstruction (MPR), and 3D images. RESULTS. There were significant differences among measurements obtained at various settings within each workstation (p < 0.0001). Measurements on 2D images were more accurate with lung window than with soft-tissue window settings (p < 0.0001). For the 65-mAs data set, the most accurate measurements were obtained in analysis of axial images with lung window, 2D MPR images with lung window, and 3D tissue cube images for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea workstations, respectively, without significant differences in accuracy among techniques (0.11 < p < 0.59). The mean absolute error values for these optimal settings were 0.48 mm, 0.61 mm, and 0.76 mm, respectively, for the three workstations. Within the ultralow-dose 5-mAs data set the best methods for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea were axial with lung window, 2D MPR with lung window, and 2D MPR with lung window, respectively. Use of nearly all measurement methods, except for the Vitrea 3D tissue cube and the Wizard 2D MPR with lung window, resulted in undermeasurement of the true size of the polyps. CONCLUSION. Use of CTC computer workstations facilitates accurate polyp measurement. For routine CTC examinations, polyps should be measured with lung window settings on 2D axial or MPR images (Wizard and Advantage) or 3D images (Vitrea). When these optimal methods are used, these three commercial workstations do not differ significantly in acquisition of accurate polyp measurements at routine dose settings.",
keywords = "Cancer, Colon, CT colonography",
author = "Young, {Brett M.} and Fletcher, {Joel Garland} and Paulsen, {Scott R.} and Fargol Booya and Johnson, {C. Daniel} and Johnson, {Kristina T.} and Zackary Melton and Drew Rodysill and Jayawant Mandrekar",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
doi = "10.2214/AJR.05.1535",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "188",
pages = "122--129",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Polyp measurements with CT colonography

T2 - Multiple-reader, multiple-workstation comparison

AU - Young, Brett M.

AU - Fletcher, Joel Garland

AU - Paulsen, Scott R.

AU - Booya, Fargol

AU - Johnson, C. Daniel

AU - Johnson, Kristina T.

AU - Melton, Zackary

AU - Rodysill, Drew

AU - Mandrekar, Jayawant

PY - 2007/1

Y1 - 2007/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE. The risk of invasive colorectal cancer in colorectal polyps correlates with lesion size. Our purpose was to define the most accurate methods for measuring polyp size at CT colonography (CTC) using three models of workstations and multiple observers. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Six reviewers measured 24 unique polyps of known size (5, 7, 10, and 12 mm), shape (sessile, flat, and pedunculated), and location (straight or curved bowel segment) using CTC data sets obtained at two doses (5 mAs and 65 mAs) and a previously described colonic phantom model. Reviewers measured the largest diameter of polyps on three proprietary workstations. Each polyp was measured with lung and soft-tissue windows on axial, 2D multiplanar reconstruction (MPR), and 3D images. RESULTS. There were significant differences among measurements obtained at various settings within each workstation (p < 0.0001). Measurements on 2D images were more accurate with lung window than with soft-tissue window settings (p < 0.0001). For the 65-mAs data set, the most accurate measurements were obtained in analysis of axial images with lung window, 2D MPR images with lung window, and 3D tissue cube images for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea workstations, respectively, without significant differences in accuracy among techniques (0.11 < p < 0.59). The mean absolute error values for these optimal settings were 0.48 mm, 0.61 mm, and 0.76 mm, respectively, for the three workstations. Within the ultralow-dose 5-mAs data set the best methods for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea were axial with lung window, 2D MPR with lung window, and 2D MPR with lung window, respectively. Use of nearly all measurement methods, except for the Vitrea 3D tissue cube and the Wizard 2D MPR with lung window, resulted in undermeasurement of the true size of the polyps. CONCLUSION. Use of CTC computer workstations facilitates accurate polyp measurement. For routine CTC examinations, polyps should be measured with lung window settings on 2D axial or MPR images (Wizard and Advantage) or 3D images (Vitrea). When these optimal methods are used, these three commercial workstations do not differ significantly in acquisition of accurate polyp measurements at routine dose settings.

AB - OBJECTIVE. The risk of invasive colorectal cancer in colorectal polyps correlates with lesion size. Our purpose was to define the most accurate methods for measuring polyp size at CT colonography (CTC) using three models of workstations and multiple observers. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Six reviewers measured 24 unique polyps of known size (5, 7, 10, and 12 mm), shape (sessile, flat, and pedunculated), and location (straight or curved bowel segment) using CTC data sets obtained at two doses (5 mAs and 65 mAs) and a previously described colonic phantom model. Reviewers measured the largest diameter of polyps on three proprietary workstations. Each polyp was measured with lung and soft-tissue windows on axial, 2D multiplanar reconstruction (MPR), and 3D images. RESULTS. There were significant differences among measurements obtained at various settings within each workstation (p < 0.0001). Measurements on 2D images were more accurate with lung window than with soft-tissue window settings (p < 0.0001). For the 65-mAs data set, the most accurate measurements were obtained in analysis of axial images with lung window, 2D MPR images with lung window, and 3D tissue cube images for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea workstations, respectively, without significant differences in accuracy among techniques (0.11 < p < 0.59). The mean absolute error values for these optimal settings were 0.48 mm, 0.61 mm, and 0.76 mm, respectively, for the three workstations. Within the ultralow-dose 5-mAs data set the best methods for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea were axial with lung window, 2D MPR with lung window, and 2D MPR with lung window, respectively. Use of nearly all measurement methods, except for the Vitrea 3D tissue cube and the Wizard 2D MPR with lung window, resulted in undermeasurement of the true size of the polyps. CONCLUSION. Use of CTC computer workstations facilitates accurate polyp measurement. For routine CTC examinations, polyps should be measured with lung window settings on 2D axial or MPR images (Wizard and Advantage) or 3D images (Vitrea). When these optimal methods are used, these three commercial workstations do not differ significantly in acquisition of accurate polyp measurements at routine dose settings.

KW - Cancer

KW - Colon

KW - CT colonography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845743018&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845743018&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2214/AJR.05.1535

DO - 10.2214/AJR.05.1535

M3 - Article

C2 - 17179354

AN - SCOPUS:33845743018

VL - 188

SP - 122

EP - 129

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 1

ER -