This is an archive of papers published by the staff and faculty of Fox Chase Cancer Center. For questions about content, please contact Talbot Research Library
Last updated on
Lui YW , Macari M , Israel G , Bini EJ , Wang H , Babb J
CT colonography data interpretation: Effect of different section thicknesses - Preliminary observations
Radiology. 2003 Dec;229(3) :791-797
AbstractPURPOSE: 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 (less than or equal to5 mm, n = 7; 6-9 mm, n = 2; greater than or equal to10 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. (C) RSNA, 2003.
NotesEnglish Article Macari, M; NYU, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Div Abdominal Imaging, 560 1st Ave,Suite HW 207, New York, NY 10016 USA. Research Addresses: NYU, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Div Abdominal Imaging, New York, NY 10016 USA. NYU, Med Ctr, VA Med Ctr, Dept Med,Div Gastroenterol, New York, NY 10016 USA. *Fox* *Chase* Canc Ctr, Dept Biostat, Philadelphia, PA 19111 USA. Cited References: CALLSTROM MR, 2001, RADIOLOGY, V219, P693 DACHMAN AH, 1998, AM J ROENTGENOL, V171, P989 GLICK S, 2000, AM J ROENTGENOL, V174, P1529 HARA AK, 1997, AM J ROENTGENOL, V168, P1181 HARA AK, 2001, RADIOLOGY, V219, P461 JOHNSON CD, 2000, RADIOLOGY, V216, P331 LEFERE PA, 2002, RADIOLOGY, V224, P393 MACARI M, 2001, RADIOLOGY, V218, P274 MACARI M, 2002, RADIOLOGY, V224, P383 MCCOLLOUGH CH, 1999, MED PHYS, V26, P2223 ROGALLA P, 2001, SEMIN ULTRASOUND CT, V22, P405 SUMMERS RM, 2001, RADIOLOGY, V219, P51 YEE J, 2001, RADIOLOGY, V219, P685 Number of cited references: 13 Number of times cited: 0 Publisher: RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA; 820 JORIE BLVD, OAK BROOK, IL 60523 USA. 0033-8419