Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computed Tomographic Colonography: Image Display Methods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Atlas of Virtual Colonoscopy

Abstract

High reader performance (high sensitivity levels with low false-positive rates) and time efficiency are the two main goals sought during interpretation of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) examinations. As CTC continues to grow as a valid screening test for colorectal neoplasia, one concern is that, as currently proposed by most authorities in the field, interpretation of CTC examinations can be perceived as time-consuming and potentially impractical for some radiologists. Thus, it is mandatory that radiologists (and others interpreting the examinations) familiarize themselves with the various paradigms available to display the CT data. In the past decade, vendors and independent researchers have devoted time, effort, and resources to develop image display tools that ease the interpretation of CTC studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Barish MA, Soto JA, Ferrucci JT. Consensus on current clinical practice of virtual colonoscopy. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:786–792.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Royster AP, Fenlon HM, Clarke PD, Nunes DP, Ferrucci JT. CT colonoscopy of colorectal neoplasms: two-dimensional and three-dimensional virtual-reality techniques with colonoscopic correlation. Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1237–1242.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Macari M, Milano A, Lavelle M, Berman P, Megibow AJ. Comparison of time-efficient CT colonography with two- and three-dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1543–1549.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Macari M, Megibow AJ. Pitfalls of using three-dimensional CT colonography with two-dimensional imaging correlation. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:137–143.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, McFarland EG, Taylor AJ. Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays. Radiology. 2005;236:872–878.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Johnson CD, Manduca A, Fletcher JG, et al. Noncathartic CT colonography with stool tagging: performance with and without electronic stool subtraction. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:361–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Juchems MS, Ernst A, Johnson P, Virmani S, Brambs HJ, Aschoff AJ. Electronic colon-cleansing for CT colonography: diagnostic performance. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34:359–364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. van Gelder RE, Florie J, Nio CY, et al. A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1181–1192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Neri E, Vannozzi F, Vagli P, Bardine A, Bartolozzi C. Time efficiency of CT colonography: 2D vs 3D visualization. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2006;30:175–180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Beaulieu CF, Jeffrey RB, Jr., Karadi C, Paik DS, Napel S. Display modes for CT colonography. Part II. Blinded comparison of axial CT and virtual endoscopic and panoramic endoscopic volume-rendered studies. Radiology. 1999;212:203–212.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1207–1217.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, Taylor AJ, et al. Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:1451–1456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rex DK, Vining D, Kopecky KK. An initial experience with screening for colon polyps using spiral CT with and without CT colography (virtual colonoscopy). Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50:309–313.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mang T, Schaefer-Prokop C, Schima W, et al. Comparison of axial, coronal, and primary 3D review in MDCT colonography for the detection of small polyps: a phantom study. Eur J Radiol. 2009;70:86–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mang TG, Schaefer-Prokop C, Maier A, Schober E, Lechner G, Prokop M. Detectability of small and flat polyps in MDCT colonography using 2D and 3D imaging tools: results from a phantom study. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:1582–1589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dachman AH, Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Morin M. CT colonography: visualization methods, interpretation, and pitfalls. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:347–359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Young BM, Fletcher JG, Paulsen SR, et al. Polyp measurement with CT colonography: multiple-reader, multiple-workstation comparison. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:122–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. de Vries AH, Bipat S, Dekker E, et al. Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1404–1413.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Summers RM, Swift JA, Dwyer AJ, Choi JR, Pickhardt PJ. Normalized distance along the colon centerline: a method for correlating polyp location on CT colonography and optical colonoscopy. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1296–1304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Duncan JE, McNally MP, Sweeney WB, et al. CT colonography predictably overestimates colonic length and distance to polyps compared with optical colonoscopy. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1291–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dachman AH. Comparison of optical colonoscopy and CT colonography for polyp detection. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1289–1290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2191–2200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pickhardt PJ. Missed lesions at primary 2D CT colonography: further support for 3D polyp detection. Radiology. 2008;246:648; author reply 648–649.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lostumbo A, Wanamaker C, Tsai J, Suzuki K, Dachman AH. Comparison of 2D and 3D views for evaluation of flat lesions in CT colonography. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:39–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Paik DS, Beaulieu CF, Jeffrey RB, Jr., Karadi CA, Napel S. Visualization modes for CT colonography using cylindrical and planar map projections. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24:179–188.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Gopal DV. Surface visualization at 3D endoluminal CT colonography: degree of coverage and implications for polyp detection. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1582–1587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pickhardt PJ, Schumacher C, Kim DH. Polyp detection at 3-dimensional endoluminal computed tomography colonography: sensitivity of one-way fly-through at 120 degrees field-of-view angle. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33:631–635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim SH, Lee JM, Eun HW, et al. Two- versus three-dimensional colon evaluation with recently developed virtual dissection software for CT colonography. Radiology. 2007;244:852–864.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Slater A, et al. Polyp detection with CT colonography: primary 3D endoluminal analysis versus primary 2D transverse analysis with computer-assisted reader software. Radiology. 2006;239:759–767.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dave SB, Wang G, Brown BP, McFarland EG, Zhang Z, Vannier MW. Straightening the colon with curved cross sections: an approach to CT colonography. Acad Radiol. 1999;6:398–410.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hock D, Ouhadi R, Materne R, et al. Virtual dissection CT colonography: evaluation of learning curves and reading times with and without computer-aided detection. Radiology. 2008;248:860–868.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hoppe H, Quattropani C, Spreng A, Mattich J, Netzer P, Dinkel HP. Virtual colon dissection with CT colonography compared with axial interpretation and conventional colonoscopy: preliminary results. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:1151–1158.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Johnson KT, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, MacCarty RL, Summers RL. CT colonography using 360-degree virtual dissection: a feasibility study. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:90–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Silva AC, Wellnitz CV, Hara AK. Three-dimensional virtual dissection at CT colonography: unraveling the colon to search for lesions. Radiographics. 2006;26:1669–1686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rottgen R, Fischbach F, Plotkin M, et al. CT colonography using different reconstruction modi. Clin Imaging. 2005;29:195–199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Vos FM, van Gelder RE, Serlie IW, et al. Three-dimensional display modes for CT colonography: conventional 3D virtual colonoscopy versus unfolded cube projection. Radiology. 2003;228:878–885.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Serlie IW, de Vries AH, van Vliet LJ, et al. Lesion conspicuity and efficiency of CT colonography with electronic cleansing based on a three-material transition model. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1493–1502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Juchems MS, Fleiter TR, Pauls S, Schmidt SA, Brambs HJ, Aschoff AJ. CT colonography: comparison of a colon dissection display versus 3D endoluminal view for the detection of polyps. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:68–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee SS, Park SH, Kim JK, et al. Panoramic endoluminal display with minimal image distortion using circumferential radial ray-casting for primary three-dimensional interpretation of CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:1951–1959.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Carrascosa P, Capunay C, Lopez EM, Ulla M, Castiglioni R, Carrascosa J. Multidetector CT colonoscopy: evaluation of the perspective-filet view virtual colon dissection technique for the detection of elevated lesions. Abdom Imaging. 2007;32:582–588.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Huang A, Roy DA, Summers RM, et al. Teniae coli–based circumferential localization system for CT colonography: feasibility study. Radiology. 2007;243:551–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 593 Eddy St., Providence, RI, 02903, USA

    Kevin J. Chang

Authors
  1. Kevin J. Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge A. Soto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin J. Chang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Radiology, MC 2026, University of Chicago, S. Maryland Ave. 5841, Chicago, 60637, Illinois, USA

    Abraham H. Dachman

  2. , Radiological, Oncological, and Pathologi, Sapienza , Università di Roma, Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy

    Andrea Laghi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chang, K.J., Soto, J.A. (2011). Computed Tomographic Colonography: Image Display Methods. In: Dachman, A., Laghi, A. (eds) Atlas of Virtual Colonoscopy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5852-5_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5852-5_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-5851-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-5852-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation