Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Future Directions/Innovations with CTC (Prepless CTC, Alternative Displays, Computer-Aided Detection)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Computerized Tomographic Colonography

  • 948 Accesses

Abstract

In Chap. 5 the routine preparation and methods of colon cleansing were discussed. A common refrain we hear is “the worst thing about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is the preparation.” While reduced cathartic and even so-called “prepless” CTC without any cathartic have been done successfully in published reports, these processes have not yet reached the mainstream for clinical application. A well-known phrase among abdominal radiologists who perform barium enemas was “heaven is a clean colon.” The same still holds true for CTC, yet the possibility of routine “prepless” CTC is within the realm of feasibility [1]. Below we will discuss these options.

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. Lenhart DK, Johnston RP, Zalis ME. Patient preparation and tagging. In: Dachman AH, Laghi A, editors. Atlas of virtual colonoscopy. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 79–86.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Weitzman ER, Zapka J, Estabrook B, Goins KV. Risk and reluctance: understanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med. 2001;32(6):502–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Neri E, Turini F, Cerri F, Vagli P, Bartolozzi C. CT colonography: same-day tagging regimen with iodixanol and reduced cathartic preparation. Abdom Imaging. 2008;34(5):642–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yoon SH, Kim SH, Kim SG, Kim SJ, Lee JM, Lee JY, et al. Comparison study of different bowel preparation regimens and different fecal-tagging agents on tagging efficacy, patients’ compliance, and diagnostic performance of computed tomographic colonography: preliminary study. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33(5):657.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Taylor SA, Slater A, Burling DN, Tam E, Greenhalgh R, Gartner L, et al. CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(1):32–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cai W, Yoshida H, Zalis ME, Nappi JJ, Harris GJ. Informatics in radiology: electronic cleansing for noncathartic CT colonography: a structure-analysis scheme. Radiographics. 2010;30(3):585–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pickhardt PJ. Colonic preparation for computed tomographic colonography: understanding the relative advantages and disadvantages of a noncathartic approach. In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2007. p. 659.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 50-75 years – United States, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59(26):808–12.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ho W, Broughton DE, Donelan K, Gazelle GS, Hur C. Analysis of barriers to and patients’ preferences for CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening in a nonadherent urban population. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D, Peringa J, Bipat S, Florie J, et al. Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(1):158–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Buccicardi D, Grosso M, Caviglia I, Gastaldo A, Carbone S, Neri E, et al. CT colonography: patient tolerance of laxative free fecal tagging regimen versus traditional cathartic cleansing. Abdom Imaging [Internet]. 2010 [cited 16 June 2011]. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/57231951l2008747/

  12. Bielen D, Thomeer M, Vanbeckevoort D, Kiss G, Maes F, Marchal G, et al. Dry preparation for virtual CT colonography with fecal tagging using water-soluble contrast medium: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(3):453–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Florie J, Gelder RE, Schutter MP, Randen A, Venema HW, Jager S, et al. Feasibility study of computed tomography colonography using limited bowel preparation at normal and low-dose levels study. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(12):3112–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Faccioli N, Foti G, Barillari M, Zaccarella A, Camera L, Biasiutti C, et al. A simplified approach to virtual colonoscopy using different intestinal preparations: preliminary experience with regard to quality, accuracy and patient acceptability. Radiol Med [Internet]. 2011 [cited 16 June 2011]. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11547-011-0661-1

  15. Dachman AH, Dawson DO, Lefere P, Yoshida H, Khan NU, Cipriani N, et al. Comparison of routine and unprepped CT colonography augmented by low fiber diet and stool tagging: a pilot study. Abdom Imaging. 2007;32(1):96–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schmilovitz-Weiss H, Weiss A, Boaz M, Levin I, Chervinski A, Shemesh E. Predictors of failed colonoscopy in nonagenarians: a single-center experience. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2007;41(4):388–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H, Chalasani N. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(6):1797–802.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chorev N, Chadad B, Segal N, Shemesh I, Mor M, Plaut S, et al. Preparation for colonoscopy in hospitalized patients. Dig Dis Sci. 2007;52(3):835–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J, Vries AH, Heutinck A, Dekker E, et al. CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol. 2009;20(1):146–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, Reed JE, Ahlquist DA, Harmsen WS, et al. CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology. 2001;219(3):693–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, Mangiapane F, Lamazza A, Schillaci A, et al. Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(5):1300–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Liedenbaum MH, Denters MJ, de Vries AH, van Ravesteijn VF, Bipat S, Vos FM, et al. Low-fiber diet in limited bowel preparation for CT colonography: influence on image quality and patient acceptance. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(1):W31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cai W, Yoshida H, Zalis M, Näppi J. Delineation of tagged region by use of local iso-surface roughness in electronic cleansing for CT colonography. In: Proceedings of SPIE. 2007. p. 651409.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Christensen KN, Fidler JL, Fletcher JG, MacCarty R, Johnson CD. Pictorial review of colonic polyp and mass distortion and recognition with the CT virtual dissection technique. Radiographics. 2010;30(5):e42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chang KJ, Soto JA. Computed tomographic colonography: image display methods [Internet]. In: Dachman AH, Laghi A, editors. Atlas of virtual colonoscopy. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 111–32 [cited 16 June 2011]. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/w65l282706558kh2/

  26. Juchems MS, Fleiter TR, Pauls S, Schmidt SA, Brambs H-J, Aschoff AJ. CT colonography: comparison of a colon dissection display versus 3D endoluminal view for the detection of polyps. Eur Radiol. 2005;16(1):68–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee SS, Park SH, Kim JK, Kim N, Lee J, Park BJ, 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(8):1951–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vos FM, van Gelder RE, Serlie IWO, Florie J, Nio CY, Glas AS, et al. Three-dimensional display modes for CT colonography: conventional 3D virtual colonoscopy versus unfolded cube projection. Radiology. 2003;228(3):878–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dachman AH, Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Morin M. CT colonography: visualization methods, interpretation, and pitfalls. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45(2):347–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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(4):631–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Silva AC, Wellnitz CV, Hara AK. Three-dimensional virtual dissection at CT colonography: unraveling the colon to search for lesions. Radiographics. 2006;26(6):1669–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Johnson KT, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, MacCarty RL, Summers RL. CT colonography using 360-degrees virtual dissection: a feasibility study. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(1):90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hock D, Ouhadi R, Materne R, Aouchria A-S, Mancini I, Broussaud T, et al. Virtual dissection CT colonography: evaluation of learning curves and reading times with and without computer-aided detection. Radiology. 2008;248(3):860–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Röttgen R, Fischbach F, Plotkin M, Lorenz M, Freund T, Schröder RJ, et al. CT colonography using different reconstruction modi. Clin Imaging. 2005;29(3):195–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kim SH, Lee JM, Eun HW, Lee MW, Han JK, Lee JY, et al. Two- versus three-dimensional colon evaluation with recently developed virtual dissection software for CT colonography. Radiology. 2007;244(3):852–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Carrascosa P, Capunay C, Martín López E, 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(5):582–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Beaulieu CF, Jeffrey Jr RB, 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(1):203–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rust G-F. 3-D postprocessing in virtual endoscopy [Internet]. In: Kramme R, Hoffmann K-P, Pozos RS, editors. Springer handbook of medical technology. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 1209–16 [cited 21 Oct 2011]. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/w253q35v50g7131g/

  39. Winsberg F, Elkin M, Macy J, Bordaz V, Weymouth W. Detection of radiographic abnormalities in mammograms by means of optical scanning and computer analysis. Radiology. 1967;89(2):211.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, Amrami KK. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection – prospective evaluation. Radiology. 2006;239(2):375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bogoni L, Cathier P, Dundar M, Jerebko A, Lakare S, Liang J, et al. Computer-aided detection (CAD) for CT colonography: a tool to address a growing need. Br J Radiol. 2005;78 Suppl 1:S57–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Doshi T, Rusinak D, Halvorsen RA, Rockey DC, Suzuki K, Dachman AH. CT colonography: false-negative interpretations. Radiology. 2007;244(1):165–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dachman AH. Atlas of virtual colonoscopy. New York: Springer; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Näppi JJ, Nagata K. Sources of false positives in computer-assisted CT colonography. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(2):153–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Suzuki K, Dachman AH. Computer-aided diagnosis in computed tomographic colonography. In: Dachman AH, Laghi A, editors. Atlas of virtual colonoscopy. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 163–82.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Taylor SA, Charman SC, Lefere P, McFarland EG, Paulson EK, Yee J, et al. CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. Radiology. 2007;246(2):463–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kiss G, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Thomeer M, Suetens P, Marchal G. Computer-aided diagnosis in virtual colonography via combination of surface normal and sphere fitting methods. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(1):77–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nappi J, Frimmel H, Dachman A, Yoshida H. New high-performance CAD scheme for the detection of polyps in CT colonography. In: Proceedings of SPIE. 2004. p. 839.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, Roddie ME, Honeyfield L, McQuillan J, et al. Computer-assisted reader software versus expert reviewers for polyp detection on CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(3):696–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wang Z, Liang Z, Li L, Li X, Li B, Anderson J, et al. Reduction of false positives by internal features for polyp detection in CT-based virtual colonoscopy. Med Phys. 2005;32(12):3602–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Okamura A, Dachman AH, Parsad N, Näppi J, Yoshida H. Evaluation of the effect of CAD on observers’ performance in detection of polyps in CT colonography. Int Congr Ser. 2004;1268:989–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C, Maier A, Graser A, Weber M, et al. Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:2598–607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Petrick N, Haider M, Summers RM, Yeshwant SC, Brown L, Iuliano EM, et al. CT colonography with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study. Radiology. 2008;246(1):148–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S, Taylor SA, Burling D, Roddie M, et al. Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1690–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Taylor SA, Robinson C, Boone D, Honeyfield L, Halligan S. Polyp characteristics correctly annotated by computer-aided detection software but ignored by reporting radiologists during CT colonography. Radiology [Internet]. 2009. Available from: http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=19789221

  56. Lawrence EM, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Robbins JB. Colorectal polyps: stand-alone performance of computer-aided detection in a large asymptomatic screening population. Radiology [Internet]. 2010. Available from: http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=20663973

  57. Summers RM, Handwerker LR, Pickhardt PJ, Van Uitert RL, Deshpande KK, Yeshwant S, et al. Performance of a previously validated CT ­colonography computer-aided detection system in a new patient population. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(1):168–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Näppi J, Okamura A, Frimmel H, Dachman A, Yoshida H. Region-based supine-prone correspondence for the reduction of false-positive CAD polyp candidates in CT colonography. Acad Radiol. 2005;12(6):695–707.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Dachman AH, Obuchowski NA, Hoffmeister JW, Hinshaw JL, Frew MI, Winter TC, et al. Effect of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a multireader, multicase trial. Radiology. 2010;256(3):827–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Yoshida H, Näppi J. CAD in CT colonography without and with oral contrast agents: progress and challenges. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2007;31:267–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Suuzuk K, Rockey DC, Dachman AH. CT colonography: advanced computer-aided detection scheme utilizing MTANNs for detection of “missed” polyps in a multicenter clinical trial. Med Phys. 2010;37(1):12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Roehrig J. The manufacturer’s perspective. Br J Radiol. 2005;78(Spec No 1):S41–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Göktürk SB, Tomasi C, Acar B, Beaulieu CF, Paik DS, Jeffrey Jr RB, et al. A statistical 3-D pattern processing method for computer-aided detection of polyps in CT colonography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001;20(12):1251–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Näppi J, Yoshida H. Automated detection of polyps with CT colonography: evaluation of volumetric features for reduction of false-positive findings. Acad Radiol. 2002;9(4):386–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Acar B, Beaulieu CF, Göktürk SB, Tomasi C, Paik DS, Jeffrey Jr RB, et al. Edge displacement field-based classification for improved detection of polyps in CT colonography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2002;21(12):1461–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Jerebko AK, Summers RM, Malley JD, Franaszek M, Johnson CD. Computer-assisted detection of colonic polyps with CT colonography using neural networks and binary classification trees. Med Phys. 2003;30(1):52–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Suzuki K, Yoshida H, Näppi J, Dachman AH. Massive-training artificial neural network (MTANN) for reduction of false positives in computer-aided detection of polyps: suppression of rectal tubes. Med Phys. 2006;33(10):3814–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Suzuki K, Yoshida H, Näppi J, Armato 3rd SG, Dachman AH. Mixture of expert 3D massive-training ANNs for reduction of multiple types of false positives in CAD for detection of polyps in CT colonography. Med Phys. 2008;35(2):694–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, The University of Chicago Medical Center (UCMC), Chicago, IL, USA

    Farid Dahi M.D. & Abraham H. Dachman M.D.

Authors
  1. Farid Dahi M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abraham H. Dachman M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abraham H. Dachman M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Center, Department of Gastroenterology, Walter Reed National Military, 8901 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, 20889, Maryland, USA

    Brooks D. Cash

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dahi, F., Dachman, A.H. (2013). Future Directions/Innovations with CTC (Prepless CTC, Alternative Displays, Computer-Aided Detection). In: Cash, B. (eds) Colorectal Cancer Screening and Computerized Tomographic Colonography. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5943-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5943-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5942-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5943-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation