We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography.
- Authors
Gelder, Rogier E. van; Florie, Jasper; Nio, C. Yung; Jensch, Sebastiaan; de Jager, Steven W.; Vos, Frans M.; Venema, Henk W.; Bartelsman, Joep F.; Reitsma, Johannes B.; Bossuyt, Patrick M. M.; Laméris, Johan S.; Stoker, Jaap
- Abstract
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 medium-sized (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.
- Subjects
ALGORITHMS; MEDICAL radiography; DIAGNOSTIC imaging; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY; RADIATION
- Publication
European Radiology, 2007, Vol 17, Issue 5, p1181
- ISSN
0938-7994
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1007/s00330-006-0487-8