European Radiology

, Volume 16, Issue 8, pp 1737–1744

Polyp measurement and size categorisation by CT colonography: effect of observer experience in a multi-centre setting

  • David Burling
  • Steve Halligan
  • Douglas G. Altman
  • Wendy Atkin
  • Clive Bartram
  • Helen Fenlon
  • Andrea Laghi
  • Jaap Stoker
  • Stuart Taylor
  • Roger Frost
  • Guido Dessey
  • Melinda De Villiers
  • Jasper Florie
  • Shane Foley
  • Lesley Honeyfield
  • Riccardo Iannaccone
  • Teresa Gallo
  • Clive Kay
  • Philippe Lefere
  • Andrew Lowe
  • Filipo Mangiapane
  • Jesse Marrannes
  • Emmanuele Neri
  • Giulia Nieddu
  • David Nicholson
  • Alan O’Hare
  • Sante Ori
  • Benedetta Politi
  • Martin Poulus
  • Daniele Regge
  • Lisa Renaut
  • Velauthan Rudralingham
  • Saverio Signoretta
  • Paola Vagli
  • Victor Van der Hulst
  • Jane Williams-Butt
Gastrointestinal

Abstract

The extent measurement error on CT colonography influences polyp categorisation according to established management guidelines is studied using twenty-eight observers of varying experience to classify polyps seen at CT colonography as either ‘medium’ (maximal diameter 6-9 mm) or ‘large’ (maximal diameter 10 mm or larger). Comparison was then made with the reference diameter obtained in each patient via colonoscopy. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess agreement between observer measurements and colonoscopy, and differences in measurement and categorisation was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-squared test statistics respectively. Observer measurements on average underestimated the diameter of polyps when compared to the reference value, by approximately 2–3 mm, irrespective of observer experience. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement were relatively wide for all observer groups, and had sufficient span to encompass different size categories for polyps. There were 167 polyp observations and 135 (81%) were correctly categorised. Of the 32 observations that were miscategorised, 5 (16%) were overestimations and 27 (84%) were underestimations (i.e. large polyps misclassified as medium). Caution should be exercised for polyps whose colonographic diameter is below but close to the 1-cm boundary threshold in order to avoid potential miscategorisation of advanced adenomas.

Keywords

CT colon Computerised tomography Virtual colonoscopy 

References

  1. 1.
    Burling D, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Usiskin S, Bartram CI (2004) CT colonography practice in the United Kingdom: a national survey. Clin Rad 59:39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iles J, Fan E, Koenig BA, Raffin TA, Kann D, Atlas SW (2003) Self-referred whole body CT imaging: current implications for health care consumers. Radiology 228:346–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kalish GM, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH, Forman HP (2004) Self referred whole-body imaging: Where are we now? Radiology 233:353–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC III, Barish MA, Clarke PD, Ferrucci JT (1999) A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. NEJM 341:1496–1503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. NEJM 349(23):2191–2200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C, Swarbrick E, Williams CB, Epstein O (2004) A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: Are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 53:277–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sosna J, Blachar A, Amitai M, Bar-ziv J (2005) Assessment of the risk of perforation at CT colongraphy (abstr). Euro Radiol 15(Suppl 3):16Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edwards JT, Mendelson RM, Fritschi L, et al (2004) Colorectal neoplasia screening with CT colonography in average-risk asymptomatic subjects: community-based study. Radiology 230:459–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taylor SA, Halligan S, O’Donnell C, Morley S, Mistry H, Saunders BP, et al (2003) Cardiovascular effects at multi-detector row CT colonography compared with those at conventional endoscopy of the colon. Radiology 229(3):782–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muto T, Bussey JR, Morson BC (1975) The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 36:2251–2270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al (2005) CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 236:3–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burling D, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Brennand D, et al (2006) Polyp size measurement by CT colonography: effect of viewing conditions on inter- and intra-observer agreement, and agreement with colonoscopy AJR (in press)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gryspeerdt S, Lefere P, Marannes J, Hermans M, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeeck B (2004). Inter- and intra-observer reliability in measurements of polyp size in CT colonography: implications for technique, training and decision analysis. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook, Ill, 617 pGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ESGAR CT colonography study group (2006) ESGAR CT colonography study group investigators: effect of directed training on reader performance for CT Colonography Radiology (in press)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MHE, et al (1996) Randomised controlled trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 348:1472–1477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen O, Sondergaard O (1996) Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet 348:1467–1471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mandel J, Bond J, Church T, Snover D, Bradley M, Schuman L (1993) Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood: Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. New Engl J Med 328:1365–1371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gopalswamy N, Shenoy VN, Choudhry U, et al (1997) Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate? Gastrointest Endosc 46(6):497–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morales TG, Sampliner RE, Garewal HS, Fennerty MB, Aickin M (1996) The difference in colon polyp size before and after removal. Gastrointest Endosc 43(1):25–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schoen RE, Gerber LD, Margulies C (1997) The pathologic measurement of polyp size is preferable to the endoscopic estimate. Gastrointest Endosc 46:492–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rex DK (1997) Endoscopists, polyp size, and post-polypectomy surveillance: making a mountain out of a molehill? Gastrointest Endosc 46:571–574PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, London p 402Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D Morley S, Bassett P, Atkin W, et al (2004) CT Colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol 14:1025–1033PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwartz E, Catalano MF, Krevsky B (1995) Endoscopic estimation of size: improved accuracy by directed teaching. Gastrointest Endosc 42:292–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, McFarland EG, Taylor AJ (2005) Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays. Radiology 236:872–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Burling
    • 1
  • Steve Halligan
    • 2
  • Douglas G. Altman
    • 3
  • Wendy Atkin
    • 9
  • Clive Bartram
    • 1
  • Helen Fenlon
    • 4
  • Andrea Laghi
    • 5
  • Jaap Stoker
    • 6
  • Stuart Taylor
    • 2
  • Roger Frost
    • 7
  • Guido Dessey
    • 8
  • Melinda De Villiers
    • 1
  • Jasper Florie
    • 6
  • Shane Foley
    • 4
  • Lesley Honeyfield
    • 1
  • Riccardo Iannaccone
    • 5
  • Teresa Gallo
    • 10
  • Clive Kay
    • 11
  • Philippe Lefere
    • 8
  • Andrew Lowe
    • 11
  • Filipo Mangiapane
    • 5
  • Jesse Marrannes
    • 8
  • Emmanuele Neri
    • 12
  • Giulia Nieddu
    • 10
  • David Nicholson
    • 13
  • Alan O’Hare
    • 4
  • Sante Ori
    • 5
  • Benedetta Politi
    • 12
  • Martin Poulus
    • 6
  • Daniele Regge
    • 10
  • Lisa Renaut
    • 13
  • Velauthan Rudralingham
    • 13
  • Saverio Signoretta
    • 10
  • Paola Vagli
    • 12
  • Victor Van der Hulst
    • 6
  • Jane Williams-Butt
    • 11
  1. 1.Intestinal Imaging CentreSt. Marks HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Specialist Radiology, Level 2 PodiumUniversity College HospitalLondonUK
  3. 3.Centre for Medical StatisticsOxfordUK
  4. 4.Mater MisericordiaeDublinIreland
  5. 5.La SapienzaRomeItaly
  6. 6.Amersterdam Medican CentreAmsterdamThe Netherland
  7. 7.Salisbury District HospitalSalisburyUK
  8. 8.Stedelijk ZiekenhuisRoeselareBelgium
  9. 9.Cancer Research UKSt Mark’s HospitalLondonUK
  10. 10.Candiolo Oncologic HospitalTurinItaly
  11. 11.Bradford Royal InfirmaryBradfordUK
  12. 12.University of PisaPisaItaly
  13. 13.Hope HospitalSalfordUK

Personalised recommendations