CT Colonography Data Interpretation

Effect of Different Section Thicknesses-Preliminary Observations

Yvonne W. Lui, Michael Macari, Gary Israel, Edmund J. Bini, Hao Wang, James Babb

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate if differences exist in the interpretation of thin- and thick-section reconstructions at computed tomographic (CT) colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients underwent multi-detector row CT colonography prior to colonoscopy. CT images were reconstructed with two methods: 1.25-mm sections reconstructed every 1 mm (thin) and 5-mm sections reconstructed every 2 mm (thick). Two independent readers interpreted thin sections, then waited a minimum of 15 days before interpreting thick sections. With colonoscopy as the reference standard, comparisons were made between interpretation of thin and thick sections, including sensitivity, specificity, and number of false-positive observations. Interpretation times were recorded, and comparisons were made by using repeated measures analysis of variance. For all tests, P <.05 indicated a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: At colonoscopy, 10 patients had 12 polyps (≤5 mm, n = 7; 6-9 mm, n = 2; ≥10 mm, n = 3). Sensitivity for polyp detection was statistically indistinguishable for thin and thick sections. Reader 1 had three false-positive findings with thin sections and six with thick sections. Reader 2 had six false-positive findings with thin sections and 11 with thick sections. For both readers, the number of false-positive findings was significantly lower for thin sections than for thick sections (P = .035). Specificity was 93.3% with thin sections and 80.0% with thick sections for reader 1 and 80.0% with thin sections and 73.3% with thick sections for reader 2. Mean interpretation time for reader 1 was significantly longer with thin sections (P <.001). Mean interpretation time for reader 2 was 13.0 minutes for both thin and thick sections. CONCLUSION: Specificity improved for both readers with thin sections, with no difference in sensitivity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)791-797
Number of pages7
JournalRadiology
Volume229
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Computed Tomographic Colonography
Colonoscopy
Polyps
Analysis of Variance
Sensitivity and Specificity

Keywords

  • Colon neoplasms
  • Colon neoplasms, CT
  • Computed tomography (CT), multidetector row
  • Computed tomography (CT), thin-section

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

CT Colonography Data Interpretation : Effect of Different Section Thicknesses-Preliminary Observations. / Lui, Yvonne W.; Macari, Michael; Israel, Gary; Bini, Edmund J.; Wang, Hao; Babb, James.

In: Radiology, Vol. 229, No. 3, 12.2003, p. 791-797.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lui, Yvonne W. ; Macari, Michael ; Israel, Gary ; Bini, Edmund J. ; Wang, Hao ; Babb, James. / CT Colonography Data Interpretation : Effect of Different Section Thicknesses-Preliminary Observations. In: Radiology. 2003 ; Vol. 229, No. 3. pp. 791-797.
@article{c19b7f96a4ed450e85f5612240d7c9bd,
title = "CT Colonography Data Interpretation: Effect of Different Section Thicknesses-Preliminary Observations",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To evaluate if differences exist in the interpretation of thin- and thick-section reconstructions at computed tomographic (CT) colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients underwent multi-detector row CT colonography prior to colonoscopy. CT images were reconstructed with two methods: 1.25-mm sections reconstructed every 1 mm (thin) and 5-mm sections reconstructed every 2 mm (thick). Two independent readers interpreted thin sections, then waited a minimum of 15 days before interpreting thick sections. With colonoscopy as the reference standard, comparisons were made between interpretation of thin and thick sections, including sensitivity, specificity, and number of false-positive observations. Interpretation times were recorded, and comparisons were made by using repeated measures analysis of variance. For all tests, P <.05 indicated a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: At colonoscopy, 10 patients had 12 polyps (≤5 mm, n = 7; 6-9 mm, n = 2; ≥10 mm, n = 3). Sensitivity for polyp detection was statistically indistinguishable for thin and thick sections. Reader 1 had three false-positive findings with thin sections and six with thick sections. Reader 2 had six false-positive findings with thin sections and 11 with thick sections. For both readers, the number of false-positive findings was significantly lower for thin sections than for thick sections (P = .035). Specificity was 93.3{\%} with thin sections and 80.0{\%} with thick sections for reader 1 and 80.0{\%} with thin sections and 73.3{\%} with thick sections for reader 2. Mean interpretation time for reader 1 was significantly longer with thin sections (P <.001). Mean interpretation time for reader 2 was 13.0 minutes for both thin and thick sections. CONCLUSION: Specificity improved for both readers with thin sections, with no difference in sensitivity.",
keywords = "Colon neoplasms, Colon neoplasms, CT, Computed tomography (CT), multidetector row, Computed tomography (CT), thin-section",
author = "Lui, {Yvonne W.} and Michael Macari and Gary Israel and Bini, {Edmund J.} and Hao Wang and James Babb",
year = "2003",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.2293021404",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "229",
pages = "791--797",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - CT Colonography Data Interpretation

T2 - Effect of Different Section Thicknesses-Preliminary Observations

AU - Lui, Yvonne W.

AU - Macari, Michael

AU - Israel, Gary

AU - Bini, Edmund J.

AU - Wang, Hao

AU - Babb, James

PY - 2003/12

Y1 - 2003/12

N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate if differences exist in the interpretation of thin- and thick-section reconstructions at computed tomographic (CT) colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients underwent multi-detector row CT colonography prior to colonoscopy. CT images were reconstructed with two methods: 1.25-mm sections reconstructed every 1 mm (thin) and 5-mm sections reconstructed every 2 mm (thick). Two independent readers interpreted thin sections, then waited a minimum of 15 days before interpreting thick sections. With colonoscopy as the reference standard, comparisons were made between interpretation of thin and thick sections, including sensitivity, specificity, and number of false-positive observations. Interpretation times were recorded, and comparisons were made by using repeated measures analysis of variance. For all tests, P <.05 indicated a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: At colonoscopy, 10 patients had 12 polyps (≤5 mm, n = 7; 6-9 mm, n = 2; ≥10 mm, n = 3). Sensitivity for polyp detection was statistically indistinguishable for thin and thick sections. Reader 1 had three false-positive findings with thin sections and six with thick sections. Reader 2 had six false-positive findings with thin sections and 11 with thick sections. For both readers, the number of false-positive findings was significantly lower for thin sections than for thick sections (P = .035). Specificity was 93.3% with thin sections and 80.0% with thick sections for reader 1 and 80.0% with thin sections and 73.3% with thick sections for reader 2. Mean interpretation time for reader 1 was significantly longer with thin sections (P <.001). Mean interpretation time for reader 2 was 13.0 minutes for both thin and thick sections. CONCLUSION: Specificity improved for both readers with thin sections, with no difference in sensitivity.

AB - PURPOSE: To evaluate if differences exist in the interpretation of thin- and thick-section reconstructions at computed tomographic (CT) colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients underwent multi-detector row CT colonography prior to colonoscopy. CT images were reconstructed with two methods: 1.25-mm sections reconstructed every 1 mm (thin) and 5-mm sections reconstructed every 2 mm (thick). Two independent readers interpreted thin sections, then waited a minimum of 15 days before interpreting thick sections. With colonoscopy as the reference standard, comparisons were made between interpretation of thin and thick sections, including sensitivity, specificity, and number of false-positive observations. Interpretation times were recorded, and comparisons were made by using repeated measures analysis of variance. For all tests, P <.05 indicated a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: At colonoscopy, 10 patients had 12 polyps (≤5 mm, n = 7; 6-9 mm, n = 2; ≥10 mm, n = 3). Sensitivity for polyp detection was statistically indistinguishable for thin and thick sections. Reader 1 had three false-positive findings with thin sections and six with thick sections. Reader 2 had six false-positive findings with thin sections and 11 with thick sections. For both readers, the number of false-positive findings was significantly lower for thin sections than for thick sections (P = .035). Specificity was 93.3% with thin sections and 80.0% with thick sections for reader 1 and 80.0% with thin sections and 73.3% with thick sections for reader 2. Mean interpretation time for reader 1 was significantly longer with thin sections (P <.001). Mean interpretation time for reader 2 was 13.0 minutes for both thin and thick sections. CONCLUSION: Specificity improved for both readers with thin sections, with no difference in sensitivity.

KW - Colon neoplasms

KW - Colon neoplasms, CT

KW - Computed tomography (CT), multidetector row

KW - Computed tomography (CT), thin-section

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0345015530&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0345015530&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2293021404

DO - 10.1148/radiol.2293021404

M3 - Article

VL - 229

SP - 791

EP - 797

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 3

ER -