| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Computer Applications |
1 From the Departments of Medicine (C.K., D.S.P.) and Radiology (C.F.B., R.B.J., S.N.), Stanford University School of Medicine, Lucas MRS Center P-268, Stanford, CA 94305-5488. Received July 20, 1998; revision requested September 24; revision received November 18; accepted January 11, 1999. Supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants 1R01 CA72023, 1P41 RR09784-01, and LM 07033, the Packard Foundation (Los Altos, Calif), the Lucas Foundation (Menlo Park, Calif), and the Phil N. Allen Trust (Menlo Park, Calif). C.F.B. is a 1997 RSNA Scholar. C.K. is a 1998 GENDEX/RSNA Medical Student/Scholar Assistant. Address reprint requests to S.N. (e-mail: snapel@stanford.edu).
PURPOSE: To develop and validate a method for the insertion of digitally synthesized polyps into computed tomographic (CT) images of the human colon for use as ground truth for evaluation of virtual colonoscopy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spiral CT simulator software was used to generate 10 synthetic polyps in various configurations. Additional software was developed to insert these polyps into volume CT scans. Ten polyps in eight patients were selected for comparison. Three radiologists evaluated whether two-dimensional (2D) CT images and three-dimensional (3D) volume-rendered CT images showed synthetic or real polyps.
RESULTS: Edge-response profiles and noise of simulated polyps matched those of native polyps. Frequency distributions of reviewers' responses were not significantly different for synthetic versus real polyps in either 3D or 2D images. Responses were clustered around the response of "unsure" if lesions were real or synthetic. Receiver operating characteristic curves had areas of 0.54 (95% CI = 0.39, 0.68) for 3D and 0.39 (95% CI = 0.25, 0.53) for 2D images, which were not significantly different from random guessing (P = .70 and .28 for 3D and 2D images, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Synthetic polyps were indistinguishable from real polyps. This method can be used to generate ground truth experimental data for comparison of CT colonographic display and detection methods.
Index terms: Computed tomography (CT), image display and recording, 75.12115, 75.12117 • Computed tomography (CT), three-dimensional, 75.12117 • Computers, simulation • Colon, CT, 75.12111, 75.12115, 75.12117 • Colon, neoplasms, 75.3119
Related Article
Radiology 1999 212: 203-212.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. G. Mang, C. Schaefer-Prokop, A. Maier, E. Schober, G. Lechner, and M. Prokop Detectability of Small and Flat Polyps in MDCT Colonography Using 2D and 3D Imaging Tools: Results from a Phantom Study Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2005; 185(6): 1582 - 1589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Ozgun, E. Rollven, L. Blomqvist, S. Bremmer, R. Odh, and A. Fransson Polyp Detection with MDCT: A Phantom-Based Evaluation of the Impact of Dose and Spatial Resolution Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2005; 184(4): 1181 - 1188. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Yee, N. N. Kumar, R. K. Hung, G. A. Akerkar, P. R. G. Kumar, and S. D. Wall Comparison of Supine and Prone Scanning Separately and in Combination at CT Colonography Radiology, March 1, 2003; 226(3): 653 - 661. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Summers, C. F. Beaulieu, L. M. Pusanik, J. D. Malley, R. B. Jeffrey Jr, D. I. Glazer, and S. Napel Automated Polyp Detector for CT Colonography: Feasibility Study Radiology, July 1, 2000; 216(1): 284 - 290. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. F. Beaulieu, R. B. Jeffrey Jr, C. Karadi, D. S. Paik, and S. Napel Display Modes for CT Colonography: Part II. Blinded Comparison of Axial CT and Virtual Endoscopic and Panoramic Endoscopic Volume-rendered Studies Radiology, July 1, 1999; 212(1): 203 - 212. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
