Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

CT colonography interpretation: how to maximize polyp detection and minimize overcalling

  • Invited article
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article outlines how to achieve maximum accuracy in interpreting CT colonography (CTC) regarding colonic findings. Interpreting extracolonic findings seen on CTC is a separate diagnostic task and will not be addressed in this article. While many interpretive pitfalls are in fact related to CTC techniques, this article focuses on issues that are related to interpretive knowledge and skills, avoiding in-depth discussions on CTC techniques. Principal methods and further tips for detecting possible polyp candidates and for confirming true soft-tissue polyps will be discussed. Specific points about optimizing interpretation strategies for difficult flat polyps including sessile serrated polyp will be raised. There are numerous interpretive pitfalls regarding the colonic interpretation of CTC. Knowledge of these pitfalls will shorten the learning curve and help achieve accurate reads.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mang T, Maier A, Plank C, et al. (2007) Pitfalls in multi-detector row CT colonography: a systematic approach. Radiographics 27:431–454. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.272065081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pickhardt PJ (2013) Missed lesions at CT colonography: lessons learned. Abdom Imaging 38:82–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9897-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Schmidt SA, Ernst AS, Beer M, Juchems MS (2015) 3D detection of colonic polyps by CT colonography: accuracy, pitfalls, and solutions by adjunct 2D workup. Clin Radiol 70:1144–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.07.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al. (2005) CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 236:3–9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2361041926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dachman AH, Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Morin M (2007) CT colonography: visualization methods, interpretation, and pitfalls. Radiol Clin North Am 45:347–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2007.03.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH (2009) 3D imaging display at CTC. In: Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH (eds) CT colonography: principles and practice of virtual colonoscopy. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences, pp 391–413

    Google Scholar 

  7. Park SH, Lee SS, Kim JK, et al. (2008) Volume rendering with color coding of tagged stool during endoluminal fly-through CT colonography: effect on reading efficiency. Radiology 248:1018–1027. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2483071645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Gopal DV (2006) Surface visualization at 3D endoluminal CT colonography: degree of coverage and implications for polyp detection. Gastroenterology 130:1582–1587. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2006.01.044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. East JE, Saunders BP, Burling D, et al. (2007) Surface visualization at CT colonography simulated colonoscopy: effect of varying field of view and retrograde view. Am J Gastroenterol 102:2529–2535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01429.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. East JE, Saunders BP, Boone D, et al. (2008) Uni- and bidirectional wide angle CT colonography: effect on missed areas, surface visualization, viewing time and polyp conspicuity. Eur Radiol 18:1910–1917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-0969-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee SS, Park SH, Kim JK, et al. (2009) Panoramic endoluminal display with minimal image distortion using circumferential radial ray-casting for primary three-dimensional interpretation of CT colonography. Eur Radiol 19:1951–1959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1362-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim SH, Lee JM, Eun HW, et al. (2007) Two- versus three-dimensional colon evaluation with recently developed virtual dissection software for CT colonography. Radiology 244:852–864. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2443060934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Christensen KN, Fidler JL, Fletcher JG, et al. (2010) Pictorial review of colonic polyp and mass distortion and recognition with the CT virtual dissection technique. Radiographics 30:e42 (discussion e43). https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.e42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Juchems MS, Fleiter TR, Pauls S, et al. (2006) CT colonography: comparison of a colon dissection display versus 3D endoluminal view for the detection of polyps. Eur Radiol 16:68–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2805-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Boone D, Mallett S, McQuillan J, et al. (2015) Assessment of the incremental benefit of computer-aided detection (CAD) for interpretation of CT colonography by experienced and inexperienced readers. PLoS ONE 10:e0136624. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136624

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Mang T, Bogoni L, Anand VX, et al. (2014) CT colonography: effect of computer-aided detection of colonic polyps as a second and concurrent reader for general radiologists with moderate experience in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 24:1466–1476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3158-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C, et al. (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0608-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S, et al. (2006) Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology 131:1690–1699. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2006.09.051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Trilisky I, Wroblewski K, Vannier MW, et al. (2014) CT colonography with computer-aided detection: recognizing the causes of false-positive reader results. Radiographics 34:1885–1905. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.347130053

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kohli M, Prevedello LM, Filice RW, Geis JR (2017) Implementing machine learning in radiology practice and research. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:754–760. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.16.17224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee J-G, Jun S, Cho Y-W, et al. (2017) Deep learning in medical imaging: general overview. Korean J Radiol 18:570–584. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.570

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Park SH, Han K (2018) Methodologic guide for evaluating clinical performance and effect of artificial intelligence technology for medical diagnosis and prediction. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017171920

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pickhardt PJ (2004) Translucency rendering in 3D endoluminal CT colonography: a useful tool for increasing polyp specificity and decreasing interpretation time. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:429–436. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.183.2.1830429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH (2009) Potential pitfalls at CTC interpretation. In: Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH (eds) CT colonography: principles and practice of virtual colonoscopy. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences, pp 239–331

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH (2013) CT colonography: pitfalls in interpretation. Radiol Clin N Am 51:69–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2012.09.005

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Silva AC, Beaty SD, Hara AK, et al. (2007) Spectrum of normal and abnormal CT appearances of the ileocecal valve and cecum with endoscopic and surgical correlation. Radiographics 27:1039–1054. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.274065164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jang JK, Park SH, Lee JS, et al. (2016) Effect of reducing abdominal compression during prone CT colonography on ascending colonic rotation during supine-to-prone positional change. Korean J Radiol 17:47–55. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.1.47

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim JY, Park SH, Lee SS, et al. (2011) Ascending colon rotation following patient positional change during CT colonography: a potential pitfall in interpretation. Eur Radiol 21:353–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1928-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 236:872–878. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2363041534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Park SH, Choi EK, Lee SS, et al. (2007) Polyp measurement reliability, accuracy, and discrepancy: optical colonoscopy versus CT colonography with pig colonic specimens. Radiology 244:157–164. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2441060794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Summers RM (2010) Polyp size measurement at CT colonography: what do we know and what do we need to know? Radiology 255:707–720. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10090877

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Park SH, Yee J, Kim SH, Kim YH (2007) Fundamental elements for successful performance of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Korean J Radiol 8:264–275. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2007.8.4.264

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Park SH (2011) Nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasia. In: Dachman AH, Laghi A (eds) Atlas of virtual colonoscopy, 2nd edn. New York: Springer, pp 133–143

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Jass JR (2007) Classification of colorectal cancer based on correlation of clinical, morphological and molecular features. Histopathology 50:113–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02549.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND (2010) WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system, 4th edn. Lyon: IARC

    Google Scholar 

  36. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, et al. (2009) Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 150:1–8. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-150-1-200901060-00306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim DH, Hinshaw JL, Lubner MG, et al. (2014) Contrast coating for the surface of flat polyps at CT colonography: a marker for detection. Eur Radiol 24:940–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3095-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim DH, Matkowskyj KA, Lubner MG, et al. (2016) Serrated polyps at CT colonography: prevalence and characteristics of the serrated polyp spectrum. Radiology 280:455–463. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151608

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Biemer-Huttmann AE, Walsh MD, McGuckin MA, et al. (1999) Immunohistochemical staining patterns of MUC1, MUC2, MUC4, and MUC5AC mucins in hyperplastic polyps, serrated adenomas, and traditional adenomas of the colorectum. J Histochem Cytochem 47:1039–1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/002215549904700808

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tadepalli US, Feihel D, Miller KM, et al. (2011) A morphologic analysis of sessile serrated polyps observed during routine colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 74:1360–1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea

    Seong Ho Park

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Clinical Science Center, E3/311, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA

    David H. Kim

Authors
  1. Seong Ho Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David H. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seong Ho Park.

Ethics declarations

Funding

None.

Conflict of interest

SHP has no conflicts of interest to declare, and DK is a co-founder of VirtuoCTC and a Shareholder of Elucent and Cellectar.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (AVI 1195 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, S.H., Kim, D.H. CT colonography interpretation: how to maximize polyp detection and minimize overcalling. Abdom Radiol 43, 539–553 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1455-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1455-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation