Skip to main content

3D Imaging: Invaluable for the Correct Diagnosis?

  • Chapter
Virtual Colonoscopy

Part of the book series: Medical Radiology ((Med Radiol Diagn Imaging))

  • 1018 Accesses

In the evaluation of computed tomography colonogra-phy (virtual colonoscopy) (CTC) examinations, there are basically two principles of reviewing: it can be done two-dimensionally (2D) or three-dimensionally (3D) (Fig. 11.1).

The simplest 2D approach is to view the axial helical or multiplanar reformatting (MPR) CT images without any additional processing. However, in practice this approach will be combined with 3D-rendered images. The method is named primary 2D if 3D is only used for problem-solving. Alternatively, evaluation of CTC examinations can be done with a primary 3D approach, in which an (endo)luminal 3D view of the colon is combined with a requisite 2D method.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beaulieu CF, Jeffrey RB, Karadi C et al (1999) Display modes for CT-colonography — part II. Blinded comparison of axial CT and virtual endoscopic and panoramic endoscopic volume-rendered studies. Radiology 212:203–212

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Benoit PC et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy)—a multi-center comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. J Am Med Assoc 291:1713–1719

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • East JE, Saunders B P, 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fenlon HM, Nunes D P, Schroy PC et al (1999) A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 341:1496–1503

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening with CT-colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 227:378–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe H, Quattropani C, Spreng A et al (2004) Virtual colon dissection with CT-colonography compared with axial interpretation and conventional colonoscopy: preliminary results. Am J Roentgenol 182:1151–1158

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper KD, Iyriboz AT, Wise SW et al (2000) Mucosal detail at CT virtual reality: surface versus volume rendering. Radiology 214:517–522

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127:1300–1311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jensch S, de Vries AH, Peringa J et al (2008) CT-colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population. Radiology 247:122–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA et al (2003a) Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 125:311–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson CD, Toledano AY, Herman BA et al (2003b) Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting. Gastroenterology 125:688–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, MacCarty RL et al (2007) Effect of slice thickness and primary 2D versus 3D virtual dissection on colorectal lesion detection at CT-colonography in 452 asymptomatic adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:672–680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ et al (2007b) CT-colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neopla-sia. N Engl J Med 357:1403–1412

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee A, Pickhardt P (2004) Polyp visualization at CT-colonography: comparison of 2D axial and 3D endoluminal displays. In: Proceedings of the 90th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J et al (2002) Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT-colonography: initial results–polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology 224:393–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J et al (2005) CT-colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1836–1842

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macari M, Milano A, Lavelle M et al (2000) Comparison of time-efficient CT-colonography with two- and three-dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps. Am J Roentgenol 174:1543–1549

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Macari M, Lee J, Garcia Figueiras R et al (2004) Primary 2D versus 3D interpretation techniques using thin section multi- detector row CT-colonography (CT-colonography). In: Proceedings of the 90th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarland EG, Brink JA, Pilgram TK et al (2001) Spiral CT-colonography: reader agreement and diagnostic performance with two- and three-dimensional image-display techniques. Radiology 218:375–383

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickhardt PJ, Choi JH (2003) Electronic cleansing and stool tagging in CT-colonography: advantages and pitfalls with primary three-dimensional evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:799–805

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed tomo-graphic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neopla-sia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickhardt PJ (2004) Translucency rendering in 3D endolumi-nal CT colonography: a useful tool for increasing polyp specificity and decreasing interpretation time. Am J Roentgenol 183:429–436

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pineau BC, Paskett ED, Chen GJ et al (2003) Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 125:304–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rex DK (2002) Current colorectal cancer screening strategies: overview and obstacles to implementation. Rev Gastroenterol Disord 2(Suppl 1):S2–S11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Serlie I, Vos FM, van Gelder RE et al (2001) Improved visualization in virtual colonoscopy using image-based rendering. In: Proceedings of the Joint Eurographics and IEEE TCVG Symposium on Visualization, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Serlie IWO, de Vries AH, van Vliet LJ et al (2008) Lesion conspi-cuity and efficiency of CT colonography with electronic cleansing based on a three-material transition model. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1493–1502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SA, Laghi A, Lefere P et al (2007) European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT-colonography. Eur Radiol 17:575–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J et al (2004a) CT-colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 233:328–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J et al (2004b) Computed tomo-graphic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenter-ology 127:41–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Florie J et al (2004c) CT-colonography: feasibility of substantial dose reduction— comparison of medium to very low doses in identical patients. Radiology 232:611–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman ER, Zapka J, Estabrook B et al (2001) Risk and reluctance: understanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med 32:502–513

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C et al (2006) Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 239:149–159

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments Frans M. Vos is acknowledged for his comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

de Vries, A.H., Stoker, J. (2010). 3D Imaging: Invaluable for the Correct Diagnosis?. In: Lefere, P., Gryspeerdt, S. (eds) Virtual Colonoscopy. Medical Radiology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79886-6_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79886-6_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-79879-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-79886-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics