| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Technical Developments |
1 From the Department of Radiology (F.M.V., R.E.v.G., J.F., C.Y.N., J.S.) and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (A.S.G.), Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Pattern Recognition Group, Department of Applied Physics (F.M.V., I.W.O.S.) and Computer Graphics Group, Department of Mediamatics (F.H.P.), Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands; and Advanced Development, Medical Information Technology, Philips Medical Systems, Best, the Netherlands (R.T., F.A.G.). From the 2001 RSNA scientific assembly. Received July 12, 2002; revision requested August 29; revision received October 2; accepted December 19. Supported by Philips Medical Systems and ZON-MW grant 2100.0059 from the Dutch Research Council. Address correspondence to F.M.V. (e-mail: f.m.vos@amc.uva.nl).
The authors compared a conventional two-directional three-dimensional (3D) display for computed tomography (CT) colonography with an alternative method they developed on the basis of time efficiency and surface visibility. With the conventional technique, 3D ante- and retrograde cine loops were obtained (hereafter, conventional 3D). With the alternative method, six projections were obtained at 90° viewing angles (unfolded cube display). Mean evaluation time per patient with the conventional 3D display was significantly longer than that with the unfolded cube display. With the conventional 3D method, 93.8% of the colon surface came into view; with the unfolded cube method, 99.5% of the colon surface came into view. Sensitivity and specificity were not significantly different between the two methods. Agreements between observers were 
= 0.605 for conventional 3D display and = 0.692 for unfolded cube display. Consequently, the latter method enhances the 3D endoluminal display with improved time efficiency and higher surface visibility.
© RSNA, 2003
Index terms: Colon, CT, 75.12115, 75.12117 • Colon neoplasms, CT, 75.12115, 75.12117 • Computed tomography (CT), image processing, 75.12115, 75.12117 • Computed tomography (CT), three-dimensional, 75.12117 • Computed tomography (CT), technology, 75.12117 • Computed tomography (CT), volume rendering, 75.12115, 75.12117
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. Hock, R. Ouhadi, R. Materne, A.-S. Aouchria, I. Mancini, T. Broussaud, P. Magotteaux, and A. Nchimi Virtual Dissection CT Colonography: Evaluation of Learning Curves and Reading Times with and without Computer-aided Detection Radiology, September 1, 2008; 248(3): 860 - 868. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. van Wijk, J. Florie, C. Y. Nio, E. Dekker, A. H. de Vries, H. W. Venema, L. J. van Vliet, J. Stoker, and F. M. Vos Protrusion Method for Automated Estimation of Polyp Size on CT Colonography Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1279 - 1285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Sosna, T. Sella, O. Sy, P. T. Lavin, R. Eliahou, S. Fraifeld, and E. Libson Critical Analysis of the Performance of Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Detecting Colorectal Polyps >= 6 mm in the Era of CT Colonography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 374 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Jensch, R. E. van Gelder, J. Florie, M. A. T.-d. Graaf, J. V. Lobe, P. M. M. Bossuyt, S. Bipat, C. Y. Nio, and J. Stoker Performance of Radiographers in the Evaluation of CT Colonographic Images Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2007; 188(3): W249 - W255. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Mang, A. Maier, C. Plank, C. Mueller-Mang, C. Herold, and W. Schima Pitfalls in Multi-Detector Row CT Colonography: A Systematic Approach RadioGraphics, March 1, 2007; 27(2): 431 - 454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. C. Silva, C. V. Wellnitz, and A. K. Hara Three-dimensional Virtual Dissection at CT Colonography: Unraveling the Colon to Search for Lesions RadioGraphics, November 1, 2006; 26(6): 1669 - 1686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Burling, S. A. Taylor, S. Halligan, L. Gartner, M. Paliwalla, C. Peiris, L. Singh, P. Bassett, and C. Bartram Automated Insufflation of Carbon Dioxide for MDCT Colonography: Distension and Patient Experience Compared with Manual Insufflation Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2006; 186(1): 96 - 103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Halligan, D. G. Altman, S. A. Taylor, S. Mallett, J. J. Deeks, C. I. Bartram, and W. Atkin CT Colonography in the Detection of Colorectal Polyps and Cancer: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Proposed Minimum Data Set for Study Level Reporting Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 893 - 904. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. A. Barish, J. A. Soto, and J. T. Ferrucci Consensus on Current Clinical Practice of Virtual Colonoscopy Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2005; 184(3): 786 - 792. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Ajaj, T. C. Lauenstein, G. Pelster, G. Holtmann, S. G. Ruehm, J. F. Debatin, and S. C. Goehde MR Colonography in Patients with Incomplete Conventional Colonoscopy Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 452 - 459. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. E. van Gelder, H. W. Venema, J. Florie, C. Y. Nio, I. W. O. Serlie, M. P. Schutter, J. C. van Rijn, F. M. Vos, A. S. Glas, P. M. M. Bossuyt, et al. CT Colonography: Feasibility of Substantial Dose Reduction--Comparison of Medium to Very Low Doses in Identical Patients Radiology, August 1, 2004; 232(2): 611 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
