Computed Tomographic Colonography: Image Display Methods



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.


Compute Tomographic Colonography Optical Colonoscopy Pedunculate Polyp Prone Image Virtual Dissection 


  1. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Macari M, Megibow AJ. Pitfalls of using three-dimensional CT colonography with two-dimensional imaging correlation. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:137–143.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dachman AH, Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Morin M. CT colonography: visualization methods, interpretation, and pitfalls. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:347–359.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dachman AH. Comparison of optical colonoscopy and CT colonography for polyp detection. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1289–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pickhardt PJ. Missed lesions at primary 2D CT colonography: further support for 3D polyp detection. Radiology. 2008;246:648; author reply 648–649.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rottgen R, Fischbach F, Plotkin M, et al. CT colonography using different reconstruction modi. Clin Imaging. 2005;29:195–199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Huang A, Roy DA, Summers RM, et al. Teniae coli–based circumferential localization system for CT colonography: feasibility study. Radiology. 2007;243:551–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island HospitalThe Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations